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 the Application
This office action is in response to Applicant’s communication of June 30, 2025. Applicant’s arguments have been considered.
Priority: 07/10/2013
Status of Claims: Claims 1, 3 – 8, 10 – 15 and 17 – 20 are pending. Claims 1, 3 – 8, 10 – 15, and 17 – 20 have been AMENDED. Claims 2, 9 and 16 have been CANCELLED.
Status of Office Action: FINAL
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are objected to, based upon awkward language as indistinct descriptors. Claim 1 recites in-part:
… retrieve, by the programmed hardware computer processor coupled to the computer memory, financial climate event data;
identify, by the programmed hardware computer processor coupled to the computer memory, ones of the financial climate event data applicable to the first fund; … (see Claim 1, lines 5-8.) The Examiner notes that similar language appears in Claim 1, relative to operations specific to a “second fund” (see Claim 1, lines 27-33.) While the Examiner recognizes that terms are given their ordinary meaning, it remains unclear as to any sample space of characteristics, and any criteria used to establish operations of financial climate event data to funds.
Notwithstanding that terminology of “event data” simply does not appear in the specification, any structural relationship to the operations of retrieving the event data (e.g., from where it is being retrieved), identifying the event data (e.g., how it is being identified), and “event data applicable to the first fund” (e.g., any basis for determining the “applicability” of event data to a fund) remains nebulous.
The Examiner additionally notes that a description of “financial climate event” appears in the specification as follows:
[0073] In one embodiment, a financial climate event, including an event date and a predicted impact on interest rates, may be any event that is expected or predicted to occur at a future date, which may affect any current quotations, rates, or yields; and/or any future quotations, rates, or yields, such as the current or future price for any securities, current or future interest rates, or any other current or future aspects of the financial climate or of any financial markets. In one embodiment, the predicted impact on interest rates or yields corresponding to a financial climate event may be received as one expected to cause higher interest rates or yields, much higher interest rates or yields, lower interest rates or yields, or much lower interest rates or yields. An example of a financial climate event is an expected meeting of, and/or announcement from, the Federal Reserve. If the Federal Reserve is expected to hold a meeting on April 1 and potentially make an announcement to raise federal interest rates on such date, then the event date, April 1, and the predicted impact of higher federal interest rates corresponding to such event date, may be received by system administration manager 420 as a financial climate event. [emphasis added]
Accordingly, and while the Examiner notes that a “financial climate event” may be loosely associated with information/data, the sample space of a financial climate event by description lacks adequate metes and bounds (e.g., any event expected or predicted to occur at a future date.) Descriptors of “expected or predicted to occur at a future date” establish the terminology itself as lacking a specific definition as to data (i.e., expected or predicted by whom, information to be retrieved relative to any future date(s)/time, etc.) Therefore, relative to “financial climate event data”, the sample space for both the subject term proper, and operations being performed, lacks metes and bounds, with the limitations remaining indistinct.
In summary, the claim limitations at issue appear definitionally contorted, and afford operations with no structural relationship being performed upon a universal sample space lacking metes and bounds.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are objected to, based upon awkward language as an improper claim descriptor. Claim 1 recites in-part:
… calculate… a first target range…(see Claim 1, lines 9,10.)
The Examiner notes that terminology of “target range” does not appear in the specification, and that an operation of calculating remains distinct from an operation of comparing (i.e., to an individual target separately or range separately.) The Examiner additionally notes that Claims 5 – 7, 12 – 14, 19 and 20 also contain terminology of “target range”, and remain subject to a claim objection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 1, 8 and 15 recite in-part: the characteristic… (see Claim 1, line 10.) There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 3 – 7, 10 – 14 and 17 – 20 are rejected on the basis of dependency. The Examiner additionally notes that Claims 1, 8 and 15 subsequently reference characteristics (i.e., in the plural), which appears somewhat inconsistent.
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 1, 3 – 8, 10 – 15 and 17 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because 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. Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea, Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 1 recites, in part, a method for operating a family of funds by computing characteristics of a first fund, retrieving data, identifying data, calculating a range, comparing characteristics with a first range of characteristics, determining whether characteristics are outside the first range, identifying a security that should be sold and a security that should be purchased for the first fund to cause the first fund to fall within the first range, computing characteristics of a second fund, identifying data, calculating a range, comparing characteristics with a second range of characteristics, determining whether characteristics are outside the second range, identifying a security that should be sold and a security that should be purchased for the second fund to cause the second fund to fall within the second range, trading securities using the first fund, and trading securities using the second fund. The limitations of computing characteristics of a fund, retrieving data, identifying data, calculating a range, comparing characteristics to a range, determining, identifying securities that should be sold and purchased, and trading securities are directed to concepts of organizing human activity via the use of generic computer components. Hence, it falls within the “Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements such as a hardware computer processor to perform operations. The generic computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer components. Specification paragraphs 21 – 23 and 51 – 63 additionally reference general purpose computing systems and environments, with the recitation of the computer limitations amounting to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Next the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure the claim amounts to significantly more than an abstract idea. Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements to perform operations amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instruction to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 3 – 7 are dependent from Claim 1, and do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 3 – 7 also do not identify improvement to computer technology or computer functionality MPEP 2106.05(a), a particular machine MPEP 2106.05(b), or a particular transformation MPEP 2106.05(c). Given the above reasons, generic computing components associated with computing characteristics of a fund, retrieving data, identifying data, calculating a range, comparing characteristics to a range, determining, identifying securities that should be sold and purchased, and trading securities is not an inventive concept.
Independent system Claim 8 and independent product Claim 15 are directed to an abstract idea as the Federal Circuit has held that an extended claim by claim analysis is not necessary where multiple claims are “substantially similar and linked to the same abstract idea.” In this case, Claims 8 and 15 are substantially similar to process Claim 1.
Claims 10 – 14 and 17 – 20, dependent from Claims 8 and 15, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 10 – 14 and 17 – 20 also do not identify improvement to computer technology or computer functionality MPEP 2106.05(a), a particular machine MPEP 2106.05(b), or a particular transformation MPEP 2106.05(c). Given the above reasons, generic computing components associated with computing characteristics of a fund, retrieving data, identifying data, calculating a range, comparing characteristics to a range, determining, identifying securities that should be sold and purchased, and trading securities is not an inventive concept.
Therefore, Claims 1, 3 – 8, 10 – 15 and 17 – 20 are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed June 30, 2025, have been fully considered but found not persuasive.
The Amendments to the claims have been entered.
Applicant has CANCELLED Claims 2, 9 and 16 to overcome a 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection. The previous 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection of Claims 2, 9 and 16, and dependent claims has been withdrawn.
Applicant has CANCELLED Claims 2, 9 and 16 to overcome a 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection. The previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of Claims 2, 9 and 16, and dependent claims has been withdrawn.
Applicant has amended independent Claims 1, 8 and 15 to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection previously made. Applicant’s arguments and contention that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, however, is unpersuasive. Neither the claims nor the specification identifies elements beyond generic computer components performing generic computer functions. Additionally, computing characteristics of a fund, comparing characteristics, identifying securities that should be sold and purchased, and trading securities remains business related, and the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance includes identification of commercial or legal interactions and business relations within identification of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, as an abstract idea.
Applicant’s contention that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea in that there is an improvement in accuracy of system operations, is unpersuasive. Neither the claims nor the specification identifies elements beyond generic computer components performing generic computer functions, and there is no mention of performance metrics enhancement. Additionally, while association to a claimed technology may limit an abstract idea to a particular field, a general linking of an abstract idea to a claimed technology also does not demonstrate patent eligibility.
The claims do not provide a technological solution to a technological problem as the claims provide generically computer-implement operations to a business field, with the focus of the instant claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 1, 8 and 15 along with Claims dependent from Claims 1, 8 and 15 remain directed to an abstract idea (i.e., certain methods of organizing human activity), and do not identify an improvement to computer technology or computer functionality MPEP 2106.05(a), a particular machine MPEP 2106.05(b), or a particular transformation MPEP 2106.05(c). Given the above reasons, the claims are not patent eligible, as they do not provide an inventive concept and a 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection has been made on Claims 1, 3 – 8, 10 – 15 and 17 – 20.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the amended claims and 35 U.S.C. 103 are found persuasive and the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
Art cited but not relied upon pertinent to application disclosure includes Heyner et al., U.S. 2012/0317052 generally identifying analysis of funds subject to characteristics, guidelines and thresholds, and buying/selling trading decisions regarding holdings; Tuckeret al., U.S. 8,438,100 generally reading on investment funds, strategies and management features; Abreu, U.S. 2013/0132301 generally identifying risk management for investment accounts; Capriotti, U.S. 2010/0312530 generally identifying sensitivity to changes in parameters; Weber et al., U.S. 2009/0043713 generally identifying risk and investment management; and Graham et al., U.S. 2005/0187858 generally identifying management of securities offerings.
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 from the examiner should be directed to Benjamin Brindley, whose telephone number is (571) 272-7335. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday and Tuesday between 6:00 AM and 3:00 PM.
If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christine Behncke, can be reached at (571) 272-8103. The fax telephone numbers for this group are either (571) 273-8300 or (703) 872-9326 (for official communications including After Final communications labeled “Box AF”).
Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR). Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/BENJAMIN S BRINDLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3695 November 7, 2025