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 Claims
Claims 1-10 are pending in this instant application per original claims filed on 10/24/2024. Claims 1 and 6 are two independent claims reciting method and system. Claims 2-5 and 7-10 are respective dependent claims.
This Office Action is a non-final rejection on merits in response to the original claims filed by the Applicant on 24 OCTOBER 2024 for its original application of the same date that is titled: “Heppner Hicks ValueAltTM -- Computer-Implemented Integrated Alternative Asset Valuation System for Factoring the Probability of Loss”.
Accordingly, pending Claims 1-10 are now being rejected herein.
Examiner notes that all words and phrases in claims, in examination below, have been given their regular meaning (even when capitalized) unless they have been shown to have any registered trademark™, copyright© or similar registration® assigned to said capitalized words with the first recitation of such a word or phrase in the listing of claims.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more, wherein Claims 1 and 6 are independent method and system claims respectively.
Exemplary Analysis.
Claim 1: Ineligible.
The claim recites a series of steps. The claim is directed to a method reciting a series of steps, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1 -- YES).
The claim is analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. The claim recites the limitations of: projecting future cashflows to and from at least one alternative asset product; determining probabilities of default of a financing backed by the at least one alternative asset product, utilizing the projected future cashflows and a target financing structure; accessing a desired credit rating for the financing backed by the at least alternative asset product, the desired credit rating having a corresponding probability of default; and determining a target financing level for the financing. In other words, this claim describes a method to analyze the potential risks and returns with respect to a reference asset in order to evaluate and determine its relevant quality (see para [0006] in Summary). These limitations, as drafted, are steps of a method that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations via a method of organizing human activity such as fundamental economic principles or practices (to include insurance, mitigating risk), and/or commercial or legal interactions (to include agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), and/or managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people (to include social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), but for the recitation of generic computer/s and/or computer component/s such as the devices/ mobile devices. These limitations fall under the “certain methods of organizing human activity” group (Step 2A1 -- YES). And the limitations of “probabilities” and “stochastic simulation model” recited in these claims also add the “mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas.
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if it is integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements of: based on a stochastic simulation model, provide a probability of default at the target financing level that is less than a probability of default applicable to the desired credit rating for the financing. These additional elements are considered extra-solution activities. The computing devices implied in the steps are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as generic processors performing generic computer/s functions of making computations and/or processing data. These generic processors are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer/s and/or computer component/s. 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. Thus, the claim is directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A2 -- NO).
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if there are additional elements in this
claim that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas (whether claim provides inventive concept). As discussed with respect to Step 2A2 above, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer/s and/or computer component/s. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer and/or computer components over a network cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Because the additional elements of: based on a stochastic simulation model, provide a probability of default at the target financing level that is less than a probability of default applicable to the desired credit rating for the financing, were considered to be extra-solution activities in Step 2A, they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field. The disclosure does not provide any indication that these devices (processors) are anything other than generic processors and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions (MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II)) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Also, paras [0088]--[0092] of the Applicant’s own Specification describe ---
{“[0088] In various embodiments, the computing system of FIG. 8 can include software applications that implement the transactions and operations described above herein. For example, various transactions may be transactions or portions of transactions can be implemented in a different sequence than as described or illustrated herein. Additionally, various transactions or portions of transaction can be implemented concurrently or simultaneously. Portions of one or more transactions can be implemented in one or more other transaction. In accordance with aspects of the present disclosure, a software application can be used to specify such different arrangements and timing of transactions or portions of transactions such that different investors can have different timing or different implementation of transactions. The software application can be used to arrange and rearrange the transactions with ease using, for example, a graphical user interface (not shown). Account information stored in the storage 1110 and the network interface 1140 can allow the pre-arranged transactions to be communicated with various entities and institutions. ……………
[0089] In various embodiments, one or more software applications can implement an investor/client and advisor-credentialed site for the initiation of liquidity requests. Investors can provide details about alternative assets, upload asset documents, and track the progress of a transaction. They can also download a binding term sheet, when available, and request verification of accreditation. ……………………………………………………………………………………
[0090] In various embodiments, one or more software applications can implement an underwriting and risk application for documenting valuation, pricing, and ultimate offering terms. The application can incorporate a controlled sequence of tasks to ensure all parties complete their assigned responsibilities. The application can include manager approvals throughout the transaction and can provide the ability to manage multiple portfolios and offering scenarios within a single transaction, as well as selection of final deal terms to feed into other applications or systems. ……………………………………………………………………………….………
[0091] In various embodiments, one or more software applications can implement an account and transaction management application, which can be used by originations, legal, and investment operations teams. The originations team can use the application to create new accounts for investors and advisors. The legal team can use the application to review investor-provided information for purposes of anti-money laundering or other efforts. The legal team can also use the application to provide deal terms required for the generation of trust and other documents. The investment operations team can use the application to compile and distribute transaction documents, including the binding term sheet and various plan documentation. …………………………………………………………………………………………….……………….
[0092] In various embodiments, one or more software applications can implement automated generation of trust documents using data provided by one or more other application described above, can implement distribution of trust documents to appropriate parties, and can implement creation and review of accounting journal entries. Various other functionalities can be implemented. ”} ---
and indicate that the concept described by the extra-solution additional elements is conventional. Accordingly, a conclusion that the aforementioned extra-solution additional elements are well-understood, routine and conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer options 2 and 3, respectively.
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea (Step 2B -- NO), and the claim is not patent eligible.
The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of the invention including independent system Claim 6. Furthermore, the limitations of dependent method Claims 2-5, further narrow the independent method Claim 1 with additional steps and limitations (e.g., future cashflows are projected based on fundamental analysis; joint probability distribution defined by the stochastic simulation model; bisecting the financing range into an upper range, a lower range, and a midpoint; etc.), and do not resolve the issues raised in rejection of the independent method Claim 1. Similarly, dependent system Claims 7-10 also further narrow their independent Claim 6, which are rejected as ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. 101 based upon the same analysis.
Therefore, said Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Examiner’s Note: A table comparing the claims of this child application 18/925161 with its Abandoned parent application 17/972091 is attached herewith (as Appendix), which shows that the claims in both these applications are identical, and thus rejected similarly based on said comparison.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §103
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.
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. The 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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as unpatentable over a combination of references (Riggs, Damschroder, Chivetta and Johansson for almost all claims, plus Arnott for some dependent claims) as described below for each claim/ limitation.
Exemplary Analysis for Rejection of Claims 1-5
Independent Claim 1 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as unpatentable over Pub. No. US 2019/ 0370308 filed by Riggs et al. (hereinafter “Riggs”) in view of Pub. No. US 2003/ 0088492 filed by Damschroder, James Eric (hereinafter “Damschroder”), and further in view of Pub. No. US 2016/ 0004999 filed by Chivetta et al. (hereinafter “Chivetta”), and further in view of Pub. No. US 2019/ 0197626 filed by Johansson, Peter J. (hereinafter “Johansson”), and as described below for each claim/ limitation.
Examiner notes that all claims have been copied as recited by the Applicant to keep them readable and whole, even if the limitations within a claim that are not taught explicitly by the primary/previous reference (are noted in parentheses), but these limitations are noted explicitly as taught by a secondary/new reference whenever a secondary/new reference has been used.
Examiner notes that, for brevity in this rejection, the motivation statement has not been repeated herein every time a secondary reference has been used.
With respect to Claim 1, Riggs teaches ---
1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
projecting future cashflows to and from at least one Alternative Asset Product;
(see at least: Riggs Abstract and Brief Summary of the Invention in paras [0058]-[0098]; and para [0082] about {“In further embodiments, the investment securities or groups are selected from among equity, debt, derivatives, currencies, commodities, funds, notes, alternative investments, exchange-traded products, real assets, and structured products.”}; and para [0095] about {“…… investment securities represent the elements of the economic system; wherein one or more investment securities, or one or more groups, are selected from among equity, debt, derivatives, currencies, commodities, funds, notes, alternative investments, exchange-traded products, real assets, and structured products; and one or more data entities identify one or more investment securities.”}; and para [0287] for reciting “future cash flows”; which together are the same as claimed limitations above to include ‘alternative asset product’)
Riggs teaches ---
determining probabilities of Default of a Financing backed by the at least one Alternative Asset Product, the probabilities of Default determined based on (a stochastic simulation model) which utilizes the projected future cashflows and (a target Financing structure);
(see at least: Riggs ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘alternative asset product’ and ‘future cash flows’; and para [0288] about {“While different investment-grade debt securities may have the same estimated probability of default, the event or events that trigger a default vary from issuer to issuer. That is, companies may face different risk factors relative to the specific attribute set associated with the company and its operations. …”}; and para [0295] about {“The application of the invention to manage default risk in an investment-grade corporate debt portfolio provides an illustration of one embodiment. Each debt security has a level of risk that is directly tied to the value in liquidation of the under-lying assets of the company. This risk is distinctly separate from financial market risks associated with the supply and demand of the debt security itself, as well as from financial market factors that may impact the rate of return needed for a given investment security at a given point in time, such as the risk free rate at that point in time.”}; which together are the same as claimed limitations above to include ‘determining probabilities of default of a financing’)
Examiner notes that Riggs recites “a set of equations modeling stochastic components” in para [0244].
Riggs teaches as disclosed above, but it may not explicitly disclose about ‘a stochastic simulation model’. However, Damschroder teaches it explicitly.
(see at least: Damschroder Abstract and Summary of the Invention in paras [0058]-[0078]; and
para [0016] about {“Other forms of portfolio optimization and resource allocation are available. The differences in these optimization techniques may include the mathematical procedure for solving the optimization problem. Markowitz is normally a quadratic optimization; however other techniques may be used including genetic algorithms, stochastic optimization, meta-heuristics, linear programming and non-linear optimization. …”}; and para [0018] about {“…… Optimization techniques use geometric information defined by the objective and the constraints in order to find the most desirable points in the search space. Optimization problems have a complex taxonomy, but in general terms, they can be divided into linear or nonlinear, convex or non-convex, continuous or discrete (combinatorial) and deterministic or stochastic. …”}; and para [0061] about {“Another embodiment of the invention comprises a graphical simulator wherein said base model comprises a set of axes wherein said axes represent attributes associated with a set of objectives for said asset universe.”}; and para [0065] about {“Another embodiment of the invention comprises a graphical simulator wherein said graphical simulator further comprises a computerized display device in communication with said computer processor and wherein said computer processor creates a second model associated with a second asset universe and communicates said second model to said computerized display device to be simultaneously displayed on said computerized display device with said base model.”}; and para [0071] about {“Another embodiment of the invention comprises a graphical simulator wherein said computerized processor is further configured to generate a surface comprising a set of data points representing a set of assets appearing on said model's exterior and to determine a volume associated with said model.”}; and para [0074] about {“Another embodiment of the invention comprises a graphical simulator wherein said computerized processor is further configured to accept additional data regarding said asset universe and create an animated series of models illustrating a set of differences between a first model and a set of additional models.”}; and para [0335] about {“…… The pliability of the model reflects the dynamic nature of correlations and other variables, and the degree to which the model holds its shape can be used to model the variance of a portfolio and depict the effects of leverage on a portfolio. The frames of a portfolio animation can be randomly selected or sorted based on any user-desired criteria.”}; which together are the same as claimed limitations above to include ‘a stochastic simulation model’)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an ordinary person of skill in the art to modify the teachings of Riggs with the teachings of Damschroder. The motivation to combine these references would be to provide known and existing classification systems with underlying statistical causes for the systematic impact of the volatility of the constituents of large-scale portfolios of securities (see para [0057] of Riggs), and to provide visual representation of an asset allocation in order to allow an investor ability to visualize and manipulate the individual assets in the portfolio (see paras [0056]-[0057] of Damschroder).
Riggs and Damschroder teach as disclosed above, but they may not explicitly disclose about ‘a target financing structure’. However, Chivetta teaches it explicitly.
(see at least: Chivetta Abstract and Brief Description of the Disclosure in paras [0005]-[0007];
and paras [0020], [0024], [0078], [0087], [0107], [0109]-[0111], [0134] and [0138] for “a target financing amount”; and para [0066] for “an amount for the project”; which together are the same as claimed limitations above to include ‘a target financing structure’)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an ordinary person of skill in the art to modify the teachings of Riggs and Damschroder with the teachings of Chivetta. The motivation to combine these references would be to provide known and existing classification systems with underlying statistical causes for the systematic impact of the volatility of the constituents of large-scale portfolios of securities (see para [0057] of Riggs), and to provide visual representation of an asset allocation in order to allow an investor ability to visualize and manipulate the individual assets in the portfolio (see paras [0056]-[0057] of Damschroder), and to provide systems and methods for soliciting financing for real estate projects using an online environment that enables a plurality of potential investors to locate, analyze, compare, and purchase an interest in real estate projects (see para [0001] of Chivetta).
Riggs, Damschroder and Chivetta teach ---
accessing a desired credit rating for the Financing backed by the at least one Alternative Asset Product, the desired (credit rating having a corresponding probability of Default); and
(see at least: Riggs ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘alternative asset product’ and ‘determining probabilities of default of a financing’)
(see at least: Damschroder ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘a stochastic simulation model’; and paras [0137] & [0189] for “credit rating”; and para [0281] about {“…… In another embodiment the user may desire for the y-component of the asset vectors to represent the credit rating of each individual asset; the user might then set .sub.minq.sub.n,x as the credit rating of the selected asset with the lowest such rating, and .sub.maxq.sub.n,x as the credit rating of the selected asset with the highest such rating.”}; which together are the same as claimed limitations above to include ‘a/ the desired credit rating’)
(see at least: Chivetta ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘a target financing structure’)
Riggs, Damschroder and Chivetta teach as disclosed above to include a/the desired credit rating by Damschroder, but they may not explicitly disclose about ‘credit rating having a corresponding probability of default’. However, Johansson teaches it explicitly.
(see at least: Johansson Abstract and Summary of the Invention in paras [0024]-[0052]; and para [0095] about {“Furthermore, when considering the default risk for a particular risky asset an additional premium representing the default spread using credit agencies rating estimates may be added to account for default risk. The risk premium for a risky asset could be expressed as follows, where Ds represent a default spread for a risky asset.”}; and para [0128] about {“…… The cost of debt is estimated by adding a default spread to the risk free rate, with the magnitude of the spread depending upon the credit risk in the company, Thus, using a higher risk free rate, holding all else constant, will increase discount rates and reduce present value in a discounted cash flow valuation. …”}; which together are the same as claimed limitations above to include ‘credit rating having a corresponding probability of default’)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an ordinary person of skill in the art to modify the teachings of Riggs, Damschroder and Chivetta with the teachings of Johansson. The motivation to combine these references would be to provide known and existing classification systems with underlying statistical causes for the systematic impact of the volatility of the constituents of large-scale portfolios of securities (see para [0057] of Riggs), and to provide visual representation of an asset allocation in order to allow an investor ability to visualize and manipulate the individual assets in the portfolio (see paras [0056]-[0057] of Damschroder), and to provide systems and methods for soliciting financing for real estate projects using an online environment that enables a plurality of potential investors to locate, analyze, compare, and purchase an interest in real estate projects (see para [0001] of Chivetta), and to provide a desirable system that solves the biases in fundamentally weighted indexes which underweight growth stocks and overweight stocks with high volatility risk and furthermore solving problems with market cap weighted indexes which overweight overvalued stocks and underweight undervalued stocks (see para [0019] of Johansson).
Riggs, Damschroder, Chivetta and Johansson teach ---
determining a target Financing level for the Financing based on the stochastic simulation model providing a probability of Default at the target Financing level that is less than a probability of Default applicable to the desired credit rating for the Financing.
(see at least: Riggs ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘determining probabilities of default of a financing’)
(see at least: Damschroder ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘a stochastic simulation model’ and ‘a/ the desired credit rating’)
(see at least: Chivetta ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘a target financing structure’; and paras [0020], [0024], [0078], [0087], [0107], [0109]-[0111], [0134] and [0138] for “a target financing amount”; and para [0066] for “a target financing amount for the project”; which together are the same as claimed limitations above to include ‘a/ the target financing level’)
(see at least: Johansson ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘credit rating having a corresponding probability of default’)
Dependent Claims 2-3 & 5 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as unpatentable over
Riggs in view of Damschroder, Chivetta and Johansson as applied to the rejection of independent Claim 1 above, and as described below for each claim/ limitation.
With respect to Claim 2, Riggs, Damschroder, Chivetta and Johansson teach ---
2. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the future cashflows are projected based on fundamental analysis.
(see at least: Riggs ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘future cashflows’; and para [0257] about {“…… User preferences, current user holdings, and network position facilitate the customization of financial recommendations to users based on dynamic proximity calculations.”}; which together are the same as claimed limitations above that is similar to ‘fundamental analysis’)
(see at least: Damschroder ibidem and citations listed above; and para [0058] about {“...... The invention provides a platform to perform portfolio analysis and manage investments. At least two purposes are served by the invention. The first is efficient portfolio creation, employing user-defined variables to select assets and correlation to model them in order to maximize diversification. The second is lucid portfolio representation, in which the user can appreciate the portfolio as a whole while also viewing the individual components.”}; which together are the same as claimed limitations above to include ‘fundamental analysis’)
(see at least: Chivetta ibidem and citations listed above)
(see at least: Johansson ibidem and citations listed above; and para [0029] for “analyzes fundamental factors of …”)
With respect to Claim 3, Riggs, Damschroder, Chivetta and Johansson teach ---
3. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the probabilities of Default of the Financing are determined based on a joint probability distribution for the cashflows of the Alternative Asset Product, the joint probability distribution defined by the stochastic simulation model.
(see at least: Riggs ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘alternative asset product’ and ‘future cashflows’ and ‘determining probabilities of default of a financing’)
(see at least: Damschroder ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘a stochastic simulation model’ and ‘a/ the desired credit rating’)
(see at least: Chivetta ibidem and citations listed above)
(see at least: Johansson ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘credit rating having a corresponding probability of default’)
With respect to Claim 5, Riggs, Damschroder, Chivetta and Johansson teach ---
5. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising underwriting the Financing based on the target Financing level.
(see at least: Riggs ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘future cashflows’ and ‘determining probabilities of default of a financing’; and para [0234] for “financing data among the entities and their economic referents,”; which together are the same as claimed limitations above to include ‘underwriting’ per BRI synonyms as shown in attached Appendix)
(see at least: Damschroder ibidem and citations listed above)
(see at least: Chivetta ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘a target financing structure’ and ‘a/ the target financing level’)
(see at least: Johansson ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘credit rating having a corresponding probability of default’)
Dependent Claim 4 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as unpatentable over Riggs in view of Damschroder, Chivetta and Johansson as applied to the rejection of Claims 1-3 & 5 above, and further in view of Pub. No. US 2014/ 0046872 filed by Arnott et al. (hereinafter “Arnott”), and as described below for each claim/ limitation.
With respect to Claim 4, Riggs, Damschroder, Chivetta and Johansson teach ---
4. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein determining the target Financing level for the Finance includes, iteratively:
accessing (a Financing range) for the iteration;
bisecting (the Financing range) into (an upper range, a lower range, and a midpoint);
(see at least: Riggs ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘future cashflows’ and ‘determining probabilities of default of a financing’)
(see at least: Damschroder ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘a stochastic simulation model’ and ‘a/ the desired credit rating’)
(see at least: Chivetta ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘a target financing structure’ and ‘a/ the target financing level’)
(see at least: Johansson ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘credit rating having a corresponding probability of default’)
Riggs, Damschroder, Chivetta and Johansson teach as disclosed above, but they may not explicitly disclose about ‘a/ the financing range’ and ‘an upper range, a lower range, and a midpoint’. However, Arnott teaches them explicitly.
(see at least: Arnott Abstract and Summary in paras [0019]-[0197]; and paras [0113], [0115] & [0126] about {“….calculating, by the at least one computer processor, a statistical median of said plurality of financial metric data of said given financial object of said given entity; or calculating, by the at least one computer processor, a midpoint of said plurality of financial metric data of said given financial object of said given entity.”}; and paras [0129] and [0134] for “financial metrics” that include “economic-centric metric” and “money-centric metric” for “financial objects”; which together are the same as claimed limitations above to include ‘a/ the financing range’ and ‘an upper range, a lower range, and a midpoint’)
Examiner notes that Arnott’s teachings of a “statistical median” and a “midpoint” of the plurality of financial metric data clearly imply that there is a range with higher limit and lower limit also.
It would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an ordinary person of skill in the art to modify the teachings of Riggs, Damschroder, Chivetta and Johansson with the teachings of Arnott. The motivation to combine these references would be to provide known and existing classification systems with underlying statistical causes for the systematic impact of the volatility of the constituents of large-scale portfolios of securities (see para [0057] of Riggs), and to provide visual representation of an asset allocation in order to allow an investor ability to visualize and manipulate the individual assets in the portfolio (see paras [0056]-[0057] of Damschroder), and to provide systems and methods for soliciting financing for real estate projects using an online environment that enables a plurality of potential investors to locate, analyze, compare, and purchase an interest in real estate projects (see para [0001] of Chivetta), and to provide a desirable system that solves the biases in fundamentally weighted indexes which underweight growth stocks and overweight stocks with high volatility risk and furthermore solving problems with market cap weighted indexes which overweight overvalued stocks and underweight undervalued stocks (see para [0019] of Johansson), and to provide an improved method of weighting financial objects in a portfolio based on an index that overcomes shortcomings of conventional solutions (see para [0018] of Arnott).
Riggs, Damschroder, Chivetta, Johansson and Arnott teach ---
comparing a probability of Default at the midpoint provided by the stochastic simulation model with the probability of Default corresponding to the desired credit rating;
in a case the probability of Default at the midpoint is within a tolerance of the probability of Default corresponding to the desired credit rating, selecting the midpoint as the target Financing level; and
in a case the probability of Default at the midpoint is outside the tolerance of the probability of Default corresponding to the desired credit rating, selecting one of the upper range or the lower range as Financing range for a next iteration.
(see at least: Riggs ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘future cashflows’ and ‘determining probabilities of default of a financing’)
(see at least: Damschroder ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘a stochastic simulation model’ and ‘a/ the desired credit rating’)
(see at least: Chivetta ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘a target financing structure’ and ‘a/ the target financing level’)
(see at least: Arnott ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘a financing range’ and ‘an upper range, a lower range, and a midpoint’; and paras [0149] & [0804] about {“…… weighting using variance, wherein variance comprises a historical variance of returns of financial objects; weighting using mean, wherein mean comprises a historical average of returns of financial objects; weighting using historical averages over a range of time; weighting using historical averages over a range of 36-60 months; weighting using a reciprocal of beta; weighting using a reciprocal of variance; weighting using a square root; or weighting using a square root of a reciprocal of variance.”}; and para [0804] further about {“…… weighting using a power of a metric; weighting using a positive fractional power of a metric; weighting using a fractional power of a metric; or weighting using a power of an absolute value of a fraction of a metric.”}; and Claim 17; which together are the same as claimed limitations above to include many other metrics of financial objects)
With respect to Claims 6-10, the limitations of these system claims are rejected under 35 USC 103 based on the exemplary analysis above for the rejection of method Claims 1-5 as described above using cited references of Riggs, Damschroder, Chivetta. Johansson and Arnott, because the limitations of these system Claims 6-10 are commensurate in scope to limitations, and thus duplicates, of the above rejected method Claims 1-5 as described above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon, listed in Form 892, that is considered pertinent to the Applicant's disclosure and review for not traversing already issued patents and/or claimed inventions by the claims of the current invention of the Applicant. Please Note that Form 892 contains more references than those cited in the rejection above under 35 USC 103, and all the references cited on said Form 892 are relevant to this application that form a part of the body of prior art.
The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. The Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Sanjeev Malhotra whose telephone number is (571) 272-7292. The Examiner can normally be reached during Monday-Friday between 8:30-17:00 hours on a Flexible schedule.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, the Applicant is encouraged to contact the Examiner directly.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abhishek Vyas, can be reached on (571) 270-1836. The facsimile/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 & 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.
Electronic Communications
Prior to initiating the first e-mail correspondence with an Examiner, Applicant is responsible for filing a written statement with the USPTO in accordance with MPEP
§502.03(II). All received e-mail messages including e-mail attachments shall be placed into this application’s record. The Examiner’s e-mail address is provided below at the end of this Office Action.
/S.M./
Examiner, Art Unit 3691
sanjeev.malhotra@uspto.gov
/HANI M KAZIMI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691