DETAILED ACTION
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 (RCE) filed on December 15, 2025. Amendments to claims 1, 11 and 17 have been entered. The statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter (over prior art) was already discussed in the Office action mailed on May 20, 2025 and hence not repeated here. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined. The rejections and response to arguments are stated below.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim(s) recite(s) a computer-implemented method for providing a value analysis, which is considered a judicial exception because it falls under the category of “Certain Methods of organizing human activity” such as fundamental economic practice as well as commercial or legal interactions including agreements as discussed below. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application as discussed below. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as discussed below.
Analysis
Step 1: In the instant case, exemplary claim 1 is directed to a method.
Step 2A – Prong One: The limitations of “A computer-implemented method for providing a value analysis, the computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, by one or more processors, an original set of one or more records, an exchange portion of the original set, a time period, and an interval length from a user via a user device;
determining, by a machine learning model, a selected record set based on analyzing the original set of the one or more records;
computing, by the one or more processors, original set data of the original set, wherein the original set data includes a value for each of the one or more records for the interval length over the time period;
determining, by the one or more processors, base set data for a base set of the one or more records for the interval length over the time period, wherein the base set includes the original set without the exchange portion;
comparing, by the one or more processors, the original set and the base set to determine an exchange value;
determining, by the one or more processors, an updated exchange value for the selected record set for the interval length over the time period;
updating, by the one or more processors, the base set and the base set data to include the selected record set and the updated exchange value; and
displaying, by the one or more processors, at least one model of the original set data and the updated base set data for each selected record of the selected record set on a user interface of the user device, the user interface including one or more annotations corresponding to the updated base set data” as drafted, when considered collectively as an ordered combination without the italicized portions, is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the category of “Certain Methods of organizing human activity” such as fundamental economic practice as well as commercial or legal interactions including agreements.
Providing a value analysis is a fundamental economic practice.
The steps of “receiving, by one or more processors, an original set of one or more records, an exchange portion of the original set, a time period, and an interval length from a user via a user device;
determining, by a machine learning model, a selected record set based on analyzing the original set of the one or more records;
computing, by the one or more processors, original set data of the original set, wherein the original set data includes a value for each of the one or more records for the interval length over the time period;
determining, by the one or more processors, base set data for a base set of the one or more records for the interval length over the time period, wherein the base set includes the original set without the exchange portion;
comparing, by the one or more processors, the original set and the base set to determine an exchange value;
determining, by the one or more processors, an updated exchange value for the selected record set for the interval length over the time period;
updating, by the one or more processors, the base set and the base set data to include the selected record set and the updated exchange value; and
displaying, by the one or more processors, at least one model of the original set data and the updated base set data for each selected record of the selected record set on a user interface of the user device, including one or more annotations corresponding to the updated base set data” under the broadest reasonable interpretation, considered collectively is a form of fulfilling agreements between the parties providing the analysis and those receiving the results of the analysis such as the investors. (See [0001] of the Specification). Hence, the steps of the claim, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, considered collectively as an ordered combination without the italicized portions, covers the abstract category of “Certain Methods of organizing human activity”.
That is, other than, one or more processors, a machine learning model, and a user interface of the user device, nothing in the claim precludes the steps from being performed as a method of organizing human activity. If the claim limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional elements of one or more processors, a machine learning model and a user interface of the user device to perform all the steps. A plain reading of Figures 1-2 and 6 and descriptions in at least paragraphs [0026] – [0033] reveals that the one or more processors may be generic processors suitably programmed to execute the claimed steps. The machine learning model is broadly interpreted to include generic software suitably programmed to perform the associate functions. The user device with the user interface may be a generic user device suitably programmed to perform the associated functions. The memory having processor-readable instructions stored therein (in claim 11) may be a generic memory suitably programmed to store the associated data and information. Hence, the additional elements in the claims are all generic components suitably programmed to perform their respective functions. The additional elements in all the steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these 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. Hence, independent claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does 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, using the additional elements (identified above) to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The additional elements of the instant underlying process, when taken in combination, together do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Hence, independent claim 1 is not patent eligible. Independent claims 11 and 17 are also not patent eligible based on similar reasoning and rationale.
Dependent claims 2-10, 12-16 and 18-20, when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations only refine the abstract idea further.
For instance, in claims 2, and 12, the step “wherein determining the updated exchange value includes, for each of the one or more selected records, computing a mean value for each selected record, a standard deviation value for each selected record, and a Sharpe ratio for each selected record over the time period for the interval length” under the broadest reasonable interpretation, is a further refinement of methods of organizing human activity because this step describes the intermediate step of the underlying process.
In claims 3, and 13, the steps of “wherein computing the original set data includes computing a mean value for each record, a standard deviation value for each record, and a Sharpe ratio for each record for the interval length over the time period” under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are further refinements of methods of organizing human activity because these steps further describe the intermediate steps of the underlying process.
In claims 4, and 14, the step of “further comprising: receiving, by the one or more processors, a final record value from the user” under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are further refinements of methods of organizing human activity because this step describes an intermediate step of the underlying process.
In claims 5 and 15, the steps of “further comprising: selecting, by the one or more processors, a subset of the one or more selected records based on the final record value from the user” under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are further refinements of methods of organizing human activity because these steps describe the intermediate steps of the underlying process.
In claims 6, and 16, the step of “further comprising: displaying, by the one or more processors, the original set data and the updated base set data that corresponds to the subset of the one or more selected records on the user interface of the user device” under the broadest reasonable interpretation, is a further refinement of methods of organizing human activity because this step describes an intermediate step of the underlying process.
In claims 7 and 18, the step “wherein the original set data of one or more records includes a unique record identifier and a record amount for each of the one or more records” under the broadest reasonable interpretation, is a further refinement of methods of organizing human activity because this step describes the set data of one or more records used in the intermediate steps of the underlying process.
In claims 8 and 19, the step “wherein the selected record set includes a default set of selected records” under the broadest reasonable interpretation, is a further refinements of methods of organizing human activity because this step describes the selected record set used in the intermediate steps of the underlying process.
In claims 9 and 20, the step “wherein the time period includes a default time period, and wherein the interval length includes a default interval length” under the broadest reasonable interpretation, is a further refinements of methods of organizing human activity because this step describes the time period used in the intermediate steps of the underlying process.
In all the dependent claims, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Also, the claims do not affect an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer system itself; the claims do not affect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. In addition, the dependent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements of the instant underlying process, when taken in combination, together do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. For these reasons, the dependent claims also are not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
4. In response to Applicants arguments on pages 9-14 of the Applicant’s remarks that the claims are patent-eligible under 35 USC 101 when considered under MPEP 2106, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The fact that the claims are Patent-Ineligible when considered under the MPEP 2106 has already been addressed in the rejection and hence not all the details of the rejection are repeated here.
Response to Applicants’ arguments regarding Step 2A – Prong one:
The claims recite a computer-implemented method for providing a value analysis, which is considered a judicial exception because it falls under the category of “Certain Methods of organizing human activity” such as fundamental economic practice as well as commercial or legal interactions including agreements as discussed in the rejection.
The claimed features including those recited on page 10 of the remarks such as “receiving an original set of one or more records, an exchange portion of the original set, a time period, and an interval length from a user to display a model of original set data and an updated base model for visualization by a user on a user device, and determining, by a machine learning model, a selected record set based on analyzing the original set of the one or more records ….. the user interface includes annotations corresponding to the updated base set data for providing explanation information for a user to quickly interpret” may at best be characterized as an improvement in the overall abstract idea of providing a value analysis, using the additional elements as tools in their ordinary capacity. An improvement in abstract idea is still abstract (SAP America v. Investpic *2-3 (“We may assume that the techniques claimed are “groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant,” but that is not enough for eligibility. Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 591 (2013); accord buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Hence, the claims recite an abstract idea. Therefore, the Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Response to Applicants’ arguments regarding Step 2A – Prong two:
According to MPEP 2106, limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application include:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e).
In the instant case, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, because none of the above criteria is met. The claim (exemplary claim 1) only recites the additional elements of one or more processors, a machine learning model and a user interface of the user device to perform all the steps. A plain reading of Figures 1-2 and 6 and descriptions in at least paragraphs [0026] – [0033] reveals that the one or more processors may be generic processors suitably programmed to execute the claimed steps. The machine learning model is broadly interpreted to include generic software suitably programmed to perform the associate functions. The user device with the user interface may be a generic user device suitably programmed to perform the associated functions. The memory having processor-readable instructions stored therein (in claim 11) may be a generic memory suitably programmed to store the associated data and information. Hence, the additional elements in the claims are all generic components suitably programmed to perform their respective functions. The additional elements in all the steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these 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. Hence, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claimed features recited on pages 10-11 of the remarks and such as “receiving, by one or more processors, an original set of one or more records, an exchange portion of the original set, a time period, and an interval length from a user via a user device, ….. displaying, by the one or more processors, at least one model of the original set data and the updated base set data for each selected record of the selected record set on a user interface of the user device, the user interface including one or more annotations corresponding to the updated base set data” may at best be characterized as an improvement in the abstract idea of a method for providing a value analysis. An improvement in abstract idea is still abstract (SAP America v. Investpic *2-3 (“We may assume that the techniques claimed are “groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant,” but that is not enough for eligibility. Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 591 (2013); accord buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Nor is it enough for subject-matter eligibility that claimed techniques be novel and nonobvious in light of prior art, passing muster under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. See Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 89–90 (2012); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“A claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea). The additional elements (identified in the rejection) are generic computer components used to apply the abstract idea. It does not involve any improvements to another technology, technical field, or improvements to the functioning of the computer itself.
The alleged advantages such as “increasing the efficiency of analyzing investment portfolios with potential candidate investments …. the ability to analyze such historical data
quickly and accurately …… efficiently and accurately creating and outputting models that reflect the analysis of the historical data of both the investment portfolios and the potential candidate
investments ….. allowing users to update analysis data and/or interact with the models to further refine the analysis of the investment portfolios and the potential candidate investments” are due to improvements in the abstract idea of a method for providing a value analysis, using the additional elements as tools in their normal capacity. It does not involve any improvements to another technology, technical field, or improvements to the functioning of the computer itself. Therefore, the Applicants’ arguments are not persuasive.
Response to Applicants’ arguments regarding Step 2B:
As discussed in the rejection, 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, using the additional elements (identified in the rejection) to perform the claimed steps, amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The additional elements of the instant underlying process, when taken in combination, together do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Hence, the claims are not patent eligible.
In response to Applicant’s arguments based on the USPTO guidelines based in MPEP 2106.04(d) that that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity, the Examiner would like to point out the MPEP 2106.04(d) states:
Appropriate forms of support that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity include one or more of the following:
1. A citation to an express statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant during prosecution that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).
2. A citation to one or more of the court decisions discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) as noting the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).
3. A citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).
4. A statement that the examiner is taking official notice of the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).
The additional elements in the claims are one or more processors, a machine learning model and a user interface of the user device to perform all the steps. A plain reading of Figures 1-2 and 6 and descriptions in at least paragraphs [0026] – [0033] reveals that the one or more processors may be generic processors suitably programmed to execute the claimed steps. The machine learning model is broadly interpreted to include generic software suitably programmed to perform the associate functions. The user device with the user interface may be a generic user device suitably programmed to perform the associated functions. The memory having processor-readable instructions stored therein (in claim 11) may be a generic memory suitably programmed to store the associated data and information. Hence, the additional elements in the claims are all generic components suitably programmed to perform their respective functions. There is no indication in Applicants’ claims that any specialized hardware or other inventive computer components are required. The fact that a general purpose computing system, suitably programmed, may be used to perform the claimed method and the fact that the claims at issue do not require any nonconventional computer, network, or other components, or even a “non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces” but merely call for performance of the claimed functions “on a set of generic computer components, satisfies the MPEP 2106.04(d) requirement that the additional elements are conventional elements. Hence, Applicant’s arguments incorporating the MPEP 2106.04(d) requirement are not persuasive. In Summary, the computer system is merely a platform on which the abstract idea is implemented. Hence, the claims do not recite significantly more than an abstract idea.
For these reasons and those discussed in the rejection, the rejections under 35 USC § 101 are maintained.
Applicant’s other arguments with respect to pending claims have been considered but are not persuasive.
Conclusion
5. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
(a) Gerber; Sander (US Pub. 2024/0104660 A1) discloses systems and methods that can identify meaningful relationships between variables, such as particular investments or general asset classes. Unlike conventional correlation analysis, these systems and methods provide an improved technique of co-movement analysis that implements a threshold to eliminate data “noise” and then discretizes the remaining observations to normalize any outliers. Such co-movement analysis has numerous advantages over known techniques for characterizing relationships between variables.
(b) Carter; Michael (US Pub. 2024/0087029 A1) discloses a portfolio completion (PC) computing device that is configured to: (1) retrieve, from a memory device, historical financial data, historical value parameters data, and historical portfolio data associated with a plurality of customers, (2) train a PC model relating the historical financial data to the historical portfolio data and the historical value parameters data, wherein the PC model predicts a customized portfolio based upon user financial data and user value parameters data, (3) store the trained PC model in the memory device, (4) receive customer financial data and customer value parameter data associated with a customer, and (5) predict a customized allocation portfolio for the customer using the trained PC model based upon the received customer financial data and customer value parameter data.
6. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Narayanswamy Subramanian whose telephone number is (571) 272-6751. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Abhishek Vyas can be reached at (571) 270-1836. The fax number for Formal or Official faxes and Draft to the Patent Office 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.
/Narayanswamy Subramanian/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3691
February 18, 2026