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 filed on March 13, 2026. The replacement drawings submitted on March 13, 2026 are objected to as discussed below. Applicants election of claims 1-10, without traverse, in response to restriction/Election requirement is acknowledged and entered. Claims 1-12 are pending, of which claims 11-12 are withdrawn from consideration as being drawn to a non-elected invention as discussed below. Applicants are respectfully requested to cancel the non-elected withdrawn claims 11-12 in their reply to this office action. Claims 1-10 have been examined. The objections to the drawings, claim objections, rejections and a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter over prior art are stated below.
Drawings
2. The replacement drawings filed by the applicants on March 13, 2026 are objected to by the Examiner. Specifically, drawings of Figures 2, 3, 5-7, and 9-12 are still not clear. Formal replacement legible drawings are required in the response to this Office action. Note: Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
Claim Objections
3. Claims 1-5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “A method of operating a device for guiding evaluation of investment items, the method comprising:
setting questions for evaluating the investment items;
providing a user interface displaying the questions and supplementary materials necessary for responding to the questions to a user device, the supplementary materials including financial statements;
receiving responses to each of the questions of a first investment item from the user device;
calculating an evaluation score of a user based on the responses to each of the questions;
calculating a collective intelligence evaluation score based on responses of a plurality of investors to each of the questions; and
providing a user interface displaying the evaluation score of the user and the collective intelligence evaluation score to the user device”. It is not clear if these steps of the claim are performed manually and or by a computer processor. Similar ambiguities are present in the dependent claims 2-5 also. Appropriate correction/clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-10 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 method/device of operating a device for guiding evaluation of investment items which is considered a judicial exception because it falls under the category of certain of methods of organizing human activity such as commercial interactions including agreements in the form of contracts (a receipt for a transaction is documentation of a contract) 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, claim 6 is directed to a device.
Step 2A – Prong One: The limitations of “A device for guiding evaluation of investment items, comprising: a memory; a transceiver configured to receive responses to each question of a first investment item from a user device; and a processor operably connected to the transceiver and the memory,
wherein the processor is configured to set questions for evaluating the investment items, provide a user interface displaying the questions and supplementary materials necessary for responding to the questions to a user device, the supplementary materials including financial statements, calculate an evaluation score of a user based on the responses to each of the questions, calculate a collective intelligence evaluation score based on responses of a plurality of investors to each of the questions, and provide a user interface displaying the evaluation score of the user and the collective intelligence evaluation score to the user device” as drafted, when considered collectively as an ordered combination, without the italicized portions, is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice as well as commercial or legal interactions including resolution of agreements.
Evaluation of investment items is a fundamental economic practice such as investment analysis.
The steps of “providing a user interface displaying the questions and supplementary materials necessary for responding to the questions to a user device, the supplementary materials including financial statements, calculating an evaluation score of a user based on the responses to each of the questions, calculating a collective intelligence evaluation score based on responses of a plurality of investors to each of the questions, and providing a user interface displaying the evaluation score of the user and the collective intelligence evaluation score to the user device” is a form of commercial or legal interactions including resolution of agreements. Hence, the steps of the claim, 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, a memory, a transceiver, a processor, a user device, and a user interface, 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 a memory, a transceiver, a processor, a user device, and a user interface, to perform all the steps. A plain reading of Figures 1-3 and descriptions in associated paragraphs of the Specification reveals that the memory, the transceiver, the user device, and the user interface are all generic computer components suitably programmed to perform their respective functions. The processor may be a general purpose processor suitably programmed to perform the respective claimed functions. 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, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Hence, claim 6 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 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 6 is not patent eligible. Independent claim 1 is also not patent eligible based on similar reasoning and rationale.
Dependent claims 2-5, and 7-10, 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 7, the steps “wherein the questions include at least one question for an income statement, at least one question for a balance sheet, or at least one question for a cash flow statement” under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are further refinements of methods of organizing human activity such as commercial interactions because these steps describe the questions used in the intermediate steps of the underlying process.
In claims 3 and 8, the steps “wherein the supplementary materials include a material on performance and outlook, and a material on insider trading,
the material on the performance and outlook includes indicators indicating performance and outlook including sales and earnings per share (EPS), and
the material on the insider trading includes information on an insider name, a position, a report date, a transaction date, a transaction type, a transaction volume, an average price, a transaction amount, and features of the insider” are further refinements of methods of organizing human activity such as commercial interactions because these steps describe the information/data used in the intermediate steps of the underlying process.
In claims 4 and 9, the steps “wherein a score of the user includes an evaluation score of the first investment item, industry average score of the user, and an overall average score of the user, and
the collective intelligence score includes a collective intelligence score of the first investment item, an industry average collective intelligence score, and an overall average collective intelligence score” are further refinements of methods of organizing human activity such as commercial interactions because these steps describe the scores used in the intermediate steps of the underlying process.
In claims 5 and 10, the steps “further comprising:
outputting recommended investment items using an artificial intelligence model that uses the collective intelligence evaluation scores of the plurality of investment items as input; and
providing the recommended investment items among the plurality of investment items to the user” are further refinements of methods of organizing human activity such as commercial interactions because these steps describe the intermediate/final steps of the underlying process. The additional element of an artificial intelligence model is broadly interpreted to include generic software suitably programmed to perform the associated claimed functions. The additional element of the artificial intelligence model, performs a traditional function recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
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.
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 1-10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter over prior art:
The closest prior art of record, (Soucy K.A. et al. US Patent 8086483 B1 and Caputo; Michele et al. US Patent 8407078 B1), fail to teach a computer readable medium having stored therein instructions executable by a processor, and a system including a client device to perform a method including the steps of “calculating a collective intelligence evaluation score based on responses of a plurality of investors to each of the questions; and providing a user interface displaying the evaluation score of the user and the collective intelligence evaluation score to the user device”. Page 3 of 13Appl. No.: 14/331,106For these reasons claims 1, and 6 are deemed allowable over prior art. Dependent claims 2-5 and 7-10 are allowable over prior art by virtue of dependency on an allowable claim.
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
(a) Singtalur; Aravind Shankaragouda et al. (US Pub. 2024/0112261 A1) discloses a computer system for integrating trading account security with associate investment policy (AIP) governance. The system includes a processor and a receiver. A received trade request may include an associate social security number, an associate name, a security name, a last security purchase data, and a broker dealer name. The employee may be a private side employee. The processor may use a series of containers in electronic communication with a database or database engine to determine that the trade request is industry compliant and employer regulations compliant. When the trade request is determined to be non-compliant, then the processor may electronically message or e-mail the employee 1) a trade denial and 2) insider trading mitigation messages. Following a determination that the trade request is fully compliant; the processor may transmit the trade request to an employer trading platform and prompt the associate to execute the trade request.
(b) Greenstein; Mark Alfred (US Pub. 2019/0333157 A1) discloses methods and systems and apparatus for an improved, computer implemented means which enables an investor to change investment returns without trading on the markets, and also providing for automatically placing a retirement investor in such a method or apparatus.
8. 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
April 2, 2026
Prosecution Insights