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 .
The present application claims priority for foreign application INDIA 202411007262 filed on 02/02/2024. Benefit of foreign priority is granted.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-4, 7-17, and 19-23 are currently pending and rejected.
Claims 5, 6, and 18 are canceled.
Claim Rejection – 35 U.S.C. 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 1-4, 7-17, and 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The rationale for this finding is explained below. In the instant case, the claims are directed towards investment portfolio planning. The concept is clearly related to managing human investing activities, thus the present claims fall within the Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity grouping. Moreover, the claimed procedure can be performed mentally and the result can be presented on paper, thus the present claims also fall within the Mental Processes grouping. The claims do not include limitations that are “significantly more” than the abstract idea because the claims do not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Note that the limitations, in the instant claims, are done by the generically recited computer device. The limitations are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry. Therefore, claims 1-4, 7-17, and 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1: The claims 1-4, 7-17, and 19-23 are directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition matter.
In Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Intern., 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014), the Supreme Court applied a two-step test for determining whether a claim recites patentable subject matter. First, we determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one or more patent-ineligible concepts, i.e., laws of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract ideas. Id. At 2355 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1296–96 (2012)). If so, we then consider whether the elements of each claim, both individually and as an ordered combination, transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the ineligible concept itself.
Claims 1-4 and 7-14 are directed to a machine (i.e., device/system claims).
Claims 15-17 are directed to a manufacture (i.e., machine-readable medium claims).
Claims 19-23 are directed to a process (i.e., method claims)
Step 2A: The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Prong One
The present claims are directed towards investment portfolio planning. The concept comprises receiving a set of user inputs related to portfolio planning, obtaining a plurality of projections for one or more asset classes based on an aggregated dataset, determining a set of values based on the set of user inputs and the plurality of projections, and deriving and presenting a portfolio plan using the set of values. Portfolio planning is a fundamental economic activity and managing human investment activities, thus the present claims clearly fall within the Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity grouping. Examiner also points out that the present claims, similar to the ineligible claims in Electric Power Group v. Alstom, recite obtaining data, analyzing data, and presenting result of the analysis. The claimed concept can be performed in the human mind and the result can be presenting on paper. As such, the present claims also fall within the Mental Processes grouping. The performance of the claim limitations using generic computer components (i.e., a processor and a memory) does not preclude the claim limitation from being in the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping or mental processes grouping. Accordingly, this claim recites an abstract idea.
Prong Two
The present claims recite a processor coupled with a memory as additional elements. The additional elements are claimed to perform basic computer functions, such as receiving user inputs, obtaining projections based on an aggregated dataset, determining a set of values based on user inputs and projections, deriving and presenting portfolio plan. The recitation of the computer elements amounts to mere instruction to implement an abstract concept on computers. The present claims do not solve a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks. The present claims do not recite limitation that improve the functioning of computer, effect a physical transformation, or apply the abstract concept in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract concept to a particular technological environment. As such, the present claims fail to integrate into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As discussed earlier, the present claims only recite a processor coupled with a memory as additional elements. The additional elements are claimed to perform basic computer functions, such as receiving user inputs (i.e. “receiving or transmitting data over a network”), obtaining projections based on an aggregated dataset (i.e., extracting data and performing calculations), determining a set of values based on user inputs and projections (i.e., performing calculations), deriving and presenting portfolio plan (i.e., performing calculations and analysis, and displaying result of analysis). According to MPEP 2106.05(d), “performing repetitive calculations”, “receiving, processing, and storing data”, “electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document”, “electronic recordkeeping”, “storing and retrieving information in memory”, and “receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data” are considered well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of computer. The present claims do not improve the functioning of computer technology. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer or using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Therefore, the present claims are ineligible for patent.
In the response filed on 12/11/2025, Applicant amended independent claim 1, 15, and 19 by adding the following limitations: base on the deriving of the portfolio plan: (i) automatically causing alerts to be generated and presented and presented on a user display for a plurality of capital commitments that are to be made for at least one asset class of the one or more asset classes, wherein the alerts include fields that are prepopulated with corresponding amounts of capital that are to be transferred from a user account for allocation to be at least one asset class, (ii) automatically defining a schedule for transferring the corresponding amounts of capital from the user account for the allocation, and (iii) automatically causing the transferring to be performed in accordance with the schedule, thereby facilitating automated alerting of capital commitments and automated execution of capital transfers in accordance with the portfolio plan. Examiner points out that the amended features are merely describing automated trade recommendation and execution of the recommendation according to a portfolio plan. Such automation technology was well-known and widely used in the portfolio management field. The recitation of these features does not improve existing computer functionality or render the claims any less abstract.
In the response filed on 04/15/2026, Applicant amended independent claim 1,15, and 19 by adding the following limitations:
executing an upstream model by providing the information regarding the existing capital commitments made in the one or more asset classes to the upstream model to generate projected net asset values (NAVs) for the one or more asset classes (note: applying mathematical model to data is just performing repetitive calculations),
determining one or more deltas between the projected NAVs and determined target NAV projections for the one or more asset classes (note: performing repetitive calculations), and
accessing the aggregated dataset to retrieve and apply one or more projected net asset value (NAV)-to-committed-capital conversion ratios to the one or more deltas (note: retrieving data and performing repetitive calculations);
(i) determining corresponding amounts of capital to be transferred from a user account for allocation to at least one asset class for respective future periods (note: retrieving data and performing repetitive calculations),
(ii) generating transfer instruction data including, for each of the respective future periods, at least a corresponding amount of capital and a scheduled transfer time corresponding to a commitment time for a respective future period (note: creating scheduled transfer instruction can be performed in the human mind and written down on paper),
(iii) defining, based on the transfer instruction data, a schedule for transferring the corresponding amounts of capital from the user account for the allocation (note: creating scheduled transfer instruction can be performed in the human mind and written down on paper), and
(iv) automatically causing at least one alert to be generated and sent to a user device for a plurality of capital commitments that are to be made for the at least one asset class according to the schedule, wherein the at least one alert includes a presented link that, when selected by a user, causes presentation of a user interface (UI) including fields that are prepopulated with at least the corresponding amounts of capital and the schedule, wherein the schedule defines a buffer time prior to a time when a next commitment is to be made, and wherein the at least one alert is generated and sent according to the buffer time (note: essentially displaying the result of determinations/calculations), and
(v) automatically causing the transferring to be performed one or more systems to effect transfers of the corresponding amounts of capital in accordance with the schedule without requiring user entry of transfer instructions via the user interface (note: automating scheduled fund transfer is a basic computer function in banking industry).
The addition of these limitations does not improve computer function, since these limitations merely require basic computer function such as retrieving data, performing calculations, scheduling fund transfers, and transmitting and displaying information.
Response to Remarks
In the response filed on 04/15/2026, Applicant amended independent claim 1,15, and 19 by adding the following limitations:
executing an upstream model by providing the information regarding the existing capital commitments made in the one or more asset classes to the upstream model to generate projected net asset values (NAVs) for the one or more asset classes (note: applying mathematical model to data is just performing repetitive calculations),
determining one or more deltas between the projected NAVs and determined target NAV projections for the one or more asset classes (note: performing repetitive calculations), and
accessing the aggregated dataset to retrieve and apply one or more projected net asset value (NAV)-to-committed-capital conversion ratios to the one or more deltas (note: retrieving data and performing repetitive calculations);
(i) determining corresponding amounts of capital to be transferred from a user account for allocation to at least one asset class for respective future periods (note: retrieving data and performing repetitive calculations),
(ii) generating transfer instruction data including, for each of the respective future periods, at least a corresponding amount of capital and a scheduled transfer time corresponding to a commitment time for a respective future period (note: creating scheduled transfer instruction can be performed in the human mind and written down on paper),
(iii) defining, based on the transfer instruction data, a schedule for transferring the corresponding amounts of capital from the user account for the allocation (note: creating scheduled transfer instruction can be performed in the human mind and written down on paper), and
(iv) automatically causing at least one alert to be generated and sent to a user device for a plurality of capital commitments that are to be made for the at least one asset class according to the schedule, wherein the at least one alert includes a presented link that, when selected by a user, causes presentation of a user interface (UI) including fields that are prepopulated with at least the corresponding amounts of capital and the schedule, wherein the schedule defines a buffer time prior to a time when a next commitment is to be made, and wherein the at least one alert is generated and sent according to the buffer time (note: essentially displaying the result of determinations/calculations), and
(v) automatically causing the transferring to be performed one or more systems to effect transfers of the corresponding amounts of capital in accordance with the schedule without requiring user entry of transfer instructions via the user interface (note: automating scheduled fund transfer is a basic computer function in banking industry).
The addition of these limitations does not improve computer function, since these limitations merely require basic computer function such as retrieving data, performing calculations, scheduling fund transfers, and transmitting and displaying information.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101
Applicant's arguments filed on 04/15/2026 with respect to rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued that the amended claims do not fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes grouping”, because the claims recite “a specific computer-implemented workflow”. Examiner points out that a computer automated workflow does not render claims non-abstract. Most of the claimed steps involved “determining”, which can be performed mentally. Accessing/retrieving data and presenting determined transfer schedule on screen are also basic computer function. Moreover, automating scheduled fund transfer according to instruction has been a well-understood, routine, and conventional function in banking industry. Generating alerts using forecasts and aggregated dataset projections is essentially obtaining data, analyzing data, and presenting results (note: alerts are results of determination/calculation steps). The present claims are essentially implementing an abstract concept in a computer environment, and using computers to automate tasks that could be done manually. The amended claims do not require any new computer function or improve the functionality of computer.
Applicant argued that the amended claims recite “a concrete computer-implemented workflow that culminates in scheduled alerting and automated transfer execution”, which is analogous to Example 42 (Examiner assumes Applicant is referring to claim 1 of Example 42). Examiner disagrees. Claim 1 of Example 42 is directed to addressing a technical difficulty of sharing updated information on a patient’s medical condition with other medical providers because of 1) format inconsistencies; 2) different geographic locations of the information; and 3) untimely sharing information. Claim 1 of Example address this issue by converting different formats from various sources into a standardized format. The present claims do not involve format conversion and the specification does not mention similar technical difficulty.
Applicant argued that claim 1, similar to Example 42, integrates abstract idea into a practical application by reciting (i) upstream model interaction producing projected NAV output; (ii) generation of scheduled alerts; (iii) link-triggered UI presentation with prepopulated fields; and (iv) scheduled automated transfer. Examiner disagrees. Using a mathematical model to produce NAV is merely plugging data into a model. The claims do not even require machine learning model. This feature is merely performing calculations. Generation of scheduled alert is performing a series of calculations to determine a transfer amount and transfer time, and then displaying the result of the calculations/determinations to the user. Link-triggered UI presentation with prepopulated fields is a standard feature of Internet and browser. Finally, automating scheduled fund transfer is a well-understood, routine, and conventional computer function in the banking industry. These limitations do not improve computer function, and thus they fail to integrate the abstract concept into a practical application.
Applicant argued that the present claims are analogous to the “Transmission of Stock Quote Data” example used in conjunction with the Office’s 2014 IEG. Examiner disagrees and points out that the example recites a specific alert delivery mechanism to address the prior art problems of not able to deliver stock alert when computer is offline. The present claims do not address similar technical problem. Instead, the present claims use existing computer technology to transfer a link-triggered message to display scheduled fund transfer instruction prior to execution of the instruction for user’s confirmation. Any off-the-shelf computer can perform this function.
Applicant also argued the amended claims recite “delta-drive control logic, i.e., deltas between projected NAVs and target NAV projects to identify additional commitments and derive future transfer amounts” is analogous to Example 40. Examiner disagrees. Claim 1 of Example 40 recite a specific manner of collecting additional NetFlow protocol data whenever the initially collected data reflects an abnormal condition, which avoids excess traffic volume on the network and hinderance of network performance. The collected data can then be used to analyze the cause of the abnormal condition, which provides a specific improvement over prior systems, resulting in improved network monitoring. The present claims on the other hand merely calculate the difference between projected NAVs and target NAVs to determine how much additional money should be added. The process is not for improving network bandwidth or computer technology. Moreover, such simple calculation can be easily performed mentally, and as such, it is not directed to improve the function of computer.
Applicant further argued claim 1 includes a concrete UI workflow improvement that is analogous to Example 37. Examiner disagrees and points out that claim 1 and 2 of Example 37 are actually directed to rearranging icons on a graphical user interface based on amount of use and memory allocation. But claim 3 of Example 37 is ineligible for patent because it is merely determining the ranking of the icons based on determined amount of use. The present claims do not recite rearranging icons based on determined amount use and memory allocation. Rather, the present claims merely repopulate data by retrieving data from database. Retrieving information in memory is insufficient to improve computer function according to the ruling of Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Applicant argued the ordered combination recites significantly more than the abstract idea. However, Applicant did not provide any rationale why the ordered combination amounts to improvement to existing computer functionality. Applicant mentioned BASCOM Global Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC. The BASCOM court ruled that an inventive concept may be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of the additional elements, i.e. the installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the end-users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user. Applicant did not explain why the arrangement of additional elements are considered non-generic arrangement.
Applicant mentioned Ex Parte Desjardins to warn Examiner from oversimplifying the claims by characterizing them at an unduly high level while ignoring the claims’ concrete technical features. Examiner reminds Applicant that Ex Parte Desjardins is directed to address a specific technical problem in machine learning. The present claims, on the other hand, only recite applying an unspecific math model to data to generate outputs and relying on existing alert technology and fund transfer automation technology to implement an abstract idea in a networked computer environment.
Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer or using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Therefore, the present claims are ineligible for patent. Examiner maintains the ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Examiner agrees that the cited prior arts do not teach “executing an upstream model by providing the information regarding the existing capital commitments made in the one or more asset classes to the upstream model to generate projected net asset values (NAVs) for the one or more asset classes, determining one or more deltas between the projected NAVs and determined target NAV projections for the one or more asset classes, and accessing the aggregated dataset to retrieve and apply one or more projected net asset value (NAV)-to-committed-capital conversion ratios to the one or more deltas”, as recited in independent claim 1, 15, and 19. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAO FU whose telephone number is (571)270-3441. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 6:00 PM PST.
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, Christine M Behncke can be reached at (571) 272-8103. 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.
/HAO FU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3695
JULY-2026
Prosecution Insights