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 1-16 are pending in this instant application per original claims filed on 11/06/2024. Claims 1 and 9 are independent claims reciting method and system. Claims 2-8 and 10-16 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 06 NOVEMBER 2024 for its original application of the same date that is titled: “Heppner Bowersock Hill AlphaAltTM -- Computer-Implemented System for Forecasting Expected Returns within Private Market Segments”.
Accordingly, pending Claims 1-16 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 1-16 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 9 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: accessing first data relating to the alternative asset product and relating to a private return component; accessing second data relating to the public return component; and providing an expected return for the alternative asset product based on the first data and the second data. In other words, this claim describes a method which forecasts expected returns and cashflow distributions for alternative asset products (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 “multi-factor 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: accessing a multi-factor model for providing an expected return of an alternative asset product, the multi-factor model including a private return component and a public return component. These additional elements are considered extra-solution activities. The processor/s implied in the steps for access/use of multi-factor model 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: accessing a multi-factor model for providing an expected return of an alternative asset product, the multi-factor model including a private return component and a public return component, 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 processors (devices) 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 [0113]--[0117] of the Applicant’s own Specification describe ---
{“[0113] In various embodiments, the computing system of FIG. 11 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 storage1110 and the network interface1140 can allow the pre-arranged transactions to be communicated with various entities and institutions. …………………………..
[0114] 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 Asset Products, 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. ………………………………………………………………………………….
[0115] 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. ……………………………………………………………………………………..
[0116] 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. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
[0117] In various embodiments, one or more software applications can implement automated generation of Financing documents (e.g., Financing documents, special purpose vehicle 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 9. Furthermore, the limitations of dependent method Claims 2-8, further narrow the independent method Claim 1 with additional steps and limitations (e.g., data relating to at least one public market index; a forward-adjusted multi-factor model wherein the data relates to the at least one public market index; the forecasts for the at least one public market index are based on macroeconomic metrics; the first data includes data for signals relating to historical outperformance of an alternate asset fund class; the signals are determined based on at least one of: fundamental analysis or statistical data analysis; etc.), and do not resolve the issues raised in rejection of the independent method Claim 1. Similarly, dependent system Claims 10-16 also further narrow their independent Claim 9, which are rejected as ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. 101 based upon the same analysis.
Therefore, said Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as unpatentable over a combination of references (Riggs, Satchkov, Nevins and Arnott) as described below for each claim/ limitation.
Exemplary Analysis for Rejection of Claims 1-8
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 2013/ 0031023 filed by Satchkov, Daniel (hereinafter “Satchkov”), and further in view of Pub. No. US 2005/ 0171882 filed by Nevins, Daniel (hereinafter “Nevins”), 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.
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:
accessing (a multi-factor model) for providing (an expected return) of an Alternative Asset Product, (the multi-factor model) including (a private return component and a public return component);
(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.”}; which together are the same as claimed limitations above to include ‘alternative asset product’)
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/ the multi-factor model’. However, Satchkov teaches it explicitly.
(see at least: Satchkov Abstract and Brief Description in paras [0004]-[0008]; and para [0047] about {“Estimation of any financial risks. For example, System 100 in FIG. 1 and methods 200-800 in FIG. 2-8 can be used to improve the multi-factor risk models by changing the way that the data is utilized by those models.”}; which together are the same as claimed limitations above to include ‘a/ the multi-factor model’)
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 with the teachings of Satchkov. 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 use forecasts that can provide (through mathematical methods applied through computer algorithms) more or less importance to some observations, which will change the resulting risk forecast (see para [0003] of Satchkov).
Riggs and Satchkov teach as disclosed above, but they may not explicitly disclose about ‘an expected return’ as well as ‘a private return component and a public return component’. However, Nevins teaches them explicitly.
(see at least: Nevins Abstract and Summary of the Invention in paras [0006]-[0009]; and para [0021] about {“…… The formula is based on an investor's asset allocation target, the expected returns for public and private markets, and the expected pattern of cash flows for a private equity program. ……… In the third section, commitment strategies are tested according to various scenarios for public and private market returns. The approach is also tested using Monte-Carlo simulations and a likely range of results are calculated. ….”}; and para [0029] about {“… In one embodiment, expected returns for the private and public markets, r.sub.L and r.sub.I, represent long-term expectations. …”}; and para [0043] about {“A sensitivity analysis with respect to the return assumptions is provided in Table 2 below. Each cell in the table shows the targeted committed capital allocation for a different combination of private and public market returns. The table shows that the targeted committed capital allocation rises when the private equity return falls in relation to the public market return, and visa-versa. When the private and public market returns change by the same amount, there is little effect on the targeted committed capital allocation.”}; and para [0044] about {“For a stochastic analysis, 1,000 Monte-Carlo simulations were generated assuming that private and public market returns are normally distributed and serially independent. ….”}; which together are the same as claimed limitations above to include ‘an expected return’ as well as ‘a private return component and a public return component’)
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 and Satchkov with the teachings of Nevins. 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 use forecasts that can provide (through mathematical methods applied through computer algorithms) more or less importance to some observations, which will change the resulting risk forecast (see para [0003] of Satchkov), and to provide a novel, systematic approach for making private equity commitments that addresses the unique complications associated with committing capital to private equity (see para [0005] of Nevins).
Riggs and Satchkov and Nevins teach ---
accessing (first data) relating to the Alternative Asset Product and relating to the private return component;
accessing (second data) relating to the public return component; and
(see at least: Riggs ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘alternative asset product’)
(see at least: Satchkov ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘a/ the multi-factor model’)
(see at least: Nevins ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘a private return component’ and ‘a public return component’)
Riggs, Satchkov and Nivens teach as disclosed above, but they may not explicitly disclose about ‘first data’ and ‘second data’. However, Arnott teaches them explicitly.
(see at least: Arnott Abstract and Summary in paras [0019]-[0197]; and para [0055] about {“… a ratio of accounting based data per share; a ratio of a first accounting based data to a second accounting based data; a liquidity ratio; …”}; and para [0058] about {“……a ratio of accounting based data; a ratio of accounting based data per share; a ratio of a first accounting based data to a second accounting based data; a liquidity ratio; …”}; and para [0321] about {“In an exemplary embodiment, a first entity's emerging market data may be correlated with a second company's emerging market data.…”}; which together are the same as claimed limitations above to include ‘first data’ and ‘second data’)
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, Satchkov and Nevins 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 use forecasts that can provide (through mathematical methods applied through computer algorithms) more or less importance to some observations, which will change the resulting risk forecast (see para [0003] of Satchkov), and to provide a novel, systematic approach for making private equity commitments that addresses the unique complications associated with committing capital to private equity (see para [0005] of Nevins), 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, Satchkov, Nevins and Arnott teach ---
providing the expected return for the Alternative Asset Product based on the multi-factor model, the first data, and the second data.
(see at least: Riggs ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘alternative asset product’)
(see at least: Satchkov ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘a/ the multi-factor model’)
(see at least: Nevins ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘an expected return’)
(see at least: Arnott ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘first data’ and ‘second data’)
Dependent Claims 2-8 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as unpatentable over Riggs in view of Satchkov, Nevins and Arnott as applied to the rejection of independent Claim 1 above, and as described below for each claim/ limitation.
With respect to Claim 2, Riggs, Satchkov, Nevins and Arnott teach ---
2. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the second data relating to the public return component includes data relating to at least one public market index which affects performance of the Alternative Asset Product.
(see at least: Riggs ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘alternative asset product’)
(see at least: Satchkov ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘a/ the multi-factor model’)
(see at least: Nevins ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘a private return component’ and ‘a public return component’)
(see at least: Arnott ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘first data’ and ‘second data’; and para [0007] for “market index” as in {“…… A securities market index, by intent, reflects an entire market or a segment of a market. A passive portfolio based on an index may also reflect the entire market or segment. …”}; and paras [0008]-[0013] for various market index/es; which together are the same as claimed limitations above to include ‘at least one public market index’)
With respect to Claim 3, Riggs, Satchkov, Nevins and Arnott teach ---
3. The computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein the multi-factor model is a forward-adjusted multi-factor model, wherein the data relating to the at least one public market index includes forecasts for the at least one public market index.
(see at least: Riggs ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘alternative asset product’)
(see at least: Satchkov ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘a/ the multi-factor model’; and para [0053] about {“…In on example, the volatile periods are measured by an index of stock market volatility, such as VIX.RTM. or VXO. VIX.RTM. is a trademarked ticker symbol for the Chicago Board Options Exchange Market Volatility Index, a popular measure of the implied volatility of S&P 500 index options. Often referred to as the fear index or the fear gauge, VIX.RTM. represents one measure of the market's expectation of stock market volatility over the next 30 day period. …”}; which together are the same as claimed limitations above to include ‘forecasts for the at least one public market index’)
(see at least: Nevins ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘an expected return’ as well as ‘a private return component’ and ‘a public return component’)
(see at least: Arnott ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘first data’ and ‘second data’ as well as ‘at least one public market index’)
With respect to Claim 4, Riggs, Satchkov, Nevins and Arnott teach ---
4. The computer-implemented method of claim 3, wherein the forecasts for the at least one public market index are based on macroeconomic metrics.
(see at least: Riggs ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘alternative asset product’)
(see at least: Satchkov ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘a/ the multi-factor model’ and ‘forecasts for the at least one public market index’)
(see at least: Nevins ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘an expected return’ as well as ‘a private return component’ and ‘a public return component’)
(see at least: Arnott ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘first data’ and ‘second data’ as well as ‘at least one public market index’; and para [0063] for “emerging markets financial objects index” and “an energy metric, a petroleum characteristic, a resource consumption metric,”; which together are the same as claimed limitations above)
With respect to Claim 5, Riggs, Satchkov, Nevins and Arnott teach ---
5. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the first data includes data for signals relating to historical outperformance of an alternate asset fund class encompassing the Alternative Asset Product.
(see at least: Riggs ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘alternative asset product’)
(see at least: Satchkov ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘a/ the multi-factor model’; and para [0004] about {“This disclosure is applicable to all methods of forecasting performance of an item that use historical data on performance of such instrument(s), most commonly: price, returns, volatility.”}; and para [0029] about {“......Performance can be expressed in any financial term that shows the historical "behavior" of an asset. …… In order to perform such assignment, System 100 in FIG. 1 and methods 200-800 in FIG. 2-8 can use additional factors beyond the historic performance of an asset (or a group of assets). …… System 100 in FIG. 1 and methods 200-800 in FIG. 2-8 use the factor for assigning higher importance to performance observations from the extreme portion of the sample.…”}; and para [0058] about {“Some implementations of method 300 include generating an estimated forecast of the financial asset performance data in reference to the over-weighted high and low performance periods, at block 304. Some examples of risk statistics are VaR (Value-at-Risk), tracking error, expected tail loss, conditional value-at-risk, among others. This disclosure is applicable to all methods of forecasting risk of a financial instrument (or a group of financial instruments that is usually called `a portfolio") that use historical data on performance of such instrument(s), most commonly: price, returns, volatility. Method 300 distinguishes between observations that come from "extreme" periods of high and low magnitudes of financial asset performance data. …”}; which together are the same as claimed limitations above to include ‘signals relating to historical outperformance’)
(see at least: Nevins ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘an expected return’ as well as ‘a private return component’ and ‘a public return component’; and para [0004] about {“…Third, historical data shows that private equity performance has reached extremes not experienced in most other asset classes, implying that the future value of invested capital can be difficult to predict.”}; & Table 1 “Historical Performance of Private and Public Equity Markets”; which together are the same as claimed limitations above to include ‘historical outperformance’)
(see at least: Arnott ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘first data’ and ‘second data’)
With respect to Claim 6, Riggs, Satchkov, Nevins and Arnott teach ---
6. The computer-implemented method of claim 5, wherein the first data includes historical data for the Alternative Asset Product relating to the signals.
(see at least: Riggs ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘alternative asset product’)
(see at least: Satchkov ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘a/ the multi-factor model’ and ‘signals relating to historical outperformance’)
(see at least: Nevins ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘an expected return’; and Table 1 “Historical Performance of Private and Public Equity Markets”; which together are the same as claimed limitations above to include ‘historical data’)
(see at least: Arnott ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘first data’ and ‘second data’)
With respect to Claim 7, Riggs, Satchkov, Nevins and Arnott teach ---
7. The computer-implemented method of claim 5, wherein the multi-factor model is a forward-adjusted multi-factor model, wherein the first data includes forecasts for the Alternative Asset Product relating to the signals.
(see at least: Riggs ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘alternative asset product’)
(see at least: Satchkov ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘a/ the multi-factor model’ and ‘signals relating to historical outperformance’; and Abstract for “generating an estimated forecast of the item performance data”; and para [0004] about {“This disclosure is applicable to all methods of forecasting performance of an item that use historical data on performance of such instrument(s), most commonly: price, returns, volatility.”}; and para [0005] about {“...generating an estimated forecast of the heterogeneous data in the electronically accessible database in the system in reference to the weight in the memory of the system.”}; and para [0006] about {“…… generating an estimated forecast of the heterogeneous data of the electronically accessible repository of the system in reference to the weight.”}; and para [0007] about {“…… operable on the processor to perform the variance rules on the heterogeneous financial data using the over-weighted extreme financial data to generate or yield an estimated forecast.”}; and para [0016] about {“FIG. 8 is a method of generating the estimated forecast of the heterogeneous data in the electronically accessible database in the system in reference to the weight in the memory of the system; …”}; and estimated forecast 112; which together are the same as claimed limitations above to include ‘forecasts for …… relating to the signals’)
(see at least: Nevins ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘an expected return’)
(see at least: Arnott ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘first data’ and ‘second data’)
With respect to Claim 8, Riggs, Satchkov, Nevins and Arnott teach ---
8. The computer-implemented method of claim 5, wherein the signals are determined based on at least one of: fundamental analysis or statistical data analysis.
(see at least: Riggs ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘alternative asset product’; and para [0022] for “data analytics to control for risk and achieve more predictable, reliable rates of return.”}; and para [0062] for “sample of data entities in as determined by a test of statistical significance;” and “using a statistical measure of relatedness”; and sub-section titled “Data Analytics” in paras [0263]-[0265]; and sub-section titled “Data Set Normalization and Probability Shaping” in paras [0277]-[0280]; and sub-section titled “Portfolio Powering” in paras [0281]-[0284]; which together are the same as claimed limitations above to include ‘fundamental analysis’ and ‘statistical data analysis’)
(see at least: Satchkov ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘a/ the multi-factor model’ and ‘signals relating to historical outperformance’ plus ‘forecasts for……relating to the signals’; and “analytical engine 108” that performs analysis to prepare “estimated forecast 112”)
(see at least: Nevins ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘an expected return’ as well as ‘a private return component’ and ‘a public return component’)
(see at least: Arnott ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘first data’ and ‘second data’)
With respect to Claims 9-16, the limitations of these system claims are rejected under 35 USC 103 based on the exemplary analysis above for the rejection of method Claims 1-8 as described above using cited references of Riggs, Satchkov, Nevins and Arnott, because the limitations of these system Claims 9-16 are commensurate in scope to limitations, and thus duplicates, of the above rejected method Claims 1-8 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.
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