DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 action is in reply to Application 18/963,661 filed on 28 November 2024.
Claims 1-18 are currently pending, and have been examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
(B) CONCLUSION.--The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “assigning the transaction to a corresponding share-interval using the transaction data” and “calculating, using the transaction data, for the investor and for the share-interval, a current share-interval value by subtracting a total number of shares sold from an investor purchase number, where the investor purchase number comprises a total number of shares that the investor purchased during the share-interval”. However, it is vague and unclear as to which ‘corresponding share-interval’ or ‘share-interval’ is being referred to as the share-interval comprises a plurality of share-intervals (e.g., “sequence of share-intervals”) as initially recited within the claim. As such, the limitation does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds as to the intended scope of the claim, therefore rendering the claim indefinite.
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites: “… wherein the payment instructions module is further configured to compute …”. However, no preceding recitation of a ‘payment instructions module’ exists and therefore the term lacks proper antecedent basis and is therefore indefinite.
Regarding claims 6 and 14, the claims recite “wherein deleting the ending share-interval value of the previous share-interval significantly reduces data storage requirements and speeds up processing times of the system …”. However, the phrase ‘significantly… speeds up’ is relative in nature and insinuates a subjective standard without any bounds. Moreover, no description is disclosed or provided that supports how such phraseology is being determined or achieved. The limitations are therefore indefinite.
Claim 11 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 1. Therefore the same reasoning applies to claim 11. Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-18 are rejected based dependency on rejected base claims 1 and 11.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sullivan et al. , US 2006/0089892 A1(“Sullivan”), in view of Reuss, US 2007/0265950 A1 (“Reuss”), in view of
Burns et al., US 2006/0015436 A1 (“Burns”), in view of Doney, US 2017/0213289 A1 (“Doney”).
Re Claim 1: Sullivan discloses a computer-implemented method for creating equitable payment instructions for equitably distributing income from an income-producing security to an investor, the method comprising:
receiving an income distribution from a security issuer of an income-producing security; (Abstract: “Methods and apparatus are provided for determining a minimum distribution rate and an investment allocation among individual investments of different types, including income generating investments that may be counter-balanced by principal protection investments, according to predefined ratios, determining a distribution amount based upon a performance level of individual investments and the minimum distribution rate, and determining at least a portion of individual investments to liquidate to fund the distribution amount.”; FIG. 8: “Determine a distribution amount based upon the performance of the different investments and the minimum distribution rate.”)
Regarding the following limitation feature(s), Reuss discloses:
transferring the income distribution to a custodian; (¶[0031]: “After execution, a determination is made as to the allocation of shares to be made to the purchaser 104 ( e.g., by the share allocation system 58). In a simple example, the allocation of shares can require the calculation of a number of shares to allocate relative to a price paid for the goods or services.”; ¶[0036]: “… share allocation system 58 includes a fee engine 200, an allocation engine 202, dividend distribution engine 204”)
retrieving transaction data describing a transaction; (¶[0030]: “The transaction process 100 begins with an identification of a eligible transaction 102 ( e.g., the purchase of a good or service by the purchaser 54 from the merchant 52 in coordination with the exchange system 56). The execution of the transaction includes the identification of the goods and/or services to be associated with the transaction, the settling of the terms, including consideration (e.g., money to be paid) for the goods and/or services and completion of the transaction”)
retrieving an investor share number, the investor share number comprising a number of shares held by the investor at a start of a payment period; (¶[0011]: “The method can further include allocating shares to a purchaser associated with the eligible transaction.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Reuss with the invention of Sullivan as disclosed above for the motivation of facilitating the redemption of shares in a subsequent transaction in an effective and organized manner.
Sullivan further discloses:
dividing the payment period into a sequence of share-intervals, wherein the first interval starts immediately after the previous payment period ends, and each subsequent interval corresponds to a share-interval duration defined by the security issuer; (¶[0111]: “In some embodiments, a choice of four different distribution types may be provided. In some embodiments of the distribution methods, referred to as Type A herein, monthly distribution amounts may be based on a withdrawal percentage of the value of each of the individual income generating investments determined at the end the year or other period. In some embodiments, the distribution amount may be held constant at the prior year's level for a given income generating investment …”; ¶[0123] In Step S84, a distribution or withdrawal amount is determined based upon the performance of the different investments and the minimum distribution rate. In Step S85, it is determined which and how much of the investments to liquidate to fund the distribution amount. In some embodiments, the distribution amount is paid periodically (e.g., monthly) and the minimum distribution rate is determined periodically (e.g., annually).”)
assigning the transaction to a corresponding share-interval using the transaction data; (¶[0123] In Step S84, a distribution or withdrawal amount is determined based upon the performance of the different investments and the minimum distribution rate. In Step S85, it is determined which and how much of the investments to liquidate to fund the distribution amount. In some embodiments, the distribution amount is paid periodically (e.g., monthly) and the minimum distribution rate is determined periodically (e.g., annually).”)
calculating, using the transaction data, for the investor and for the share-interval, a current share-interval value by subtracting a total number of shares sold from an investor purchase number, where the investor purchase number comprises a total number of shares that the investor purchased during the share-interval; (¶[0111]: “In some embodiments, a choice of four different distribution types may be provided. In some embodiments of the distribution methods, referred to as Type A herein, monthly distribution amounts may be based on a withdrawal percentage of the value of each of the individual income generating investments determined at the end the year or other period. In some embodiments, the distribution amount may be held constant at the prior year's level for a given income generating investment.”)
computing an ending share-interval value by adding the current share-interval value to an ending share-interval value of a previous share-interval, wherein, for a first share-interval of a payment period, the ending share-interval value of the previous share-interval is set to the investor share number; (¶[0112]: “… income generating investments may be evaluated individually to determine how much of the total distribution each contributes.”)
Regarding the limitation(s) comprising:
deleting the ending share-interval value of the previous share-interval after computing the ending share-interval value of the current share-interval to perform interval consolidation and compression;
Burns makes this teaching in a related endeavor (¶[0099]: “… a user could modify the trading interface 600 according to the user's preferences. For example, a user may wish to view only the
consolidated depth columns, rather than the combination of both, the consolidated and individual tradeable object columns. … FIG. 11 is a block diagram illustrating a trading interface 1100
providing a consolidated market information display type. In one embodiment, a trader could activate the trading interface of this type by activating a pop-up menu and selecting a "consolidated only" selection choice. The pop-up interface could be activated upon detecting a predetermined user input …”; ¶[0102]: “… As shown in relation to FIG. 13, a trader may wish to view market information corresponding to two or more tradeable objects that trade using different tick intervals. In such an embodiment, the cells corresponding to the non-tradeable price levels will be unpopulated since there will be no quantities available at those price levels. To avoid showing empty spaces, a trader may wish to consolidate the price levels and their corresponding bid and ask quantities. If price consolidation is used, two or more price levels may be combined into a single "consolidated" price level, and the
outstanding bid and ask quantities of the consolidated price levels may then be the sum of the outstanding quantities of the un-consolidated price levels that have been combined to form the consolidated price level. Using price consolidation, a trading screen may then display information from a greater number of price levels on the trading screen than it would be able if it did not use price consolidation.”; ¶[0103]: “However, when the prices and the corresponding quantities are consolidated, some of the information … will not be shown. For example, if two bid prices are consolidated, a trader will be able to see only the combined quantity corresponding to the consolidated prices, …”; ¶[0108]: “… if more than two price levels are consolidated, more than two better than best quantity values could be displayed in relation to a corresponding consolidated price level.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Burns with the invention of Sullivan as disclosed above for the motivation of facilitating enhanced the assimilation of information in a market trading environment in an enhanced/efficient manner.
Sullivan further discloses:
identifying, for the investor, the ending share-interval value of the last share-interval of the payment period as the investor's total ending share-interval value for the payment period; (¶[0116]: “… distribution amounts are periodically determined according to the selected distribution type. In each case, once the distribution amount for each income generating investment is determined, in a next step, it is determined how to fund the distribution amount of each income generating investment.”)
calculating a cumulative ending share-interval value for the investors by summing the total ending share-interval value for each investor; ([0097]: “The particular tabular representation of portfolio performance database 312 depicted in FIG. 6 defines a number of fields for each of the entries or records. The fields may include: … (vii) an initial amount invested field 612 that may store a representation of the value of the initial amounts distributed to each investment style category; (viii) a 1st month payment amount field 614 that may store a representation of the value of the first period's distribution amount; (ix) a last month payment amount field 616 that may store a representation of the value of the final period's distribution amount …”)
computing a payable income to the investor by dividing the investor's total ending share-interval value by the cumulative ending share-interval value for the investors and multiplying the result by the income distribution for the payment period; (¶[0090]: “… an income dividend field 406 … may store a representation of an amount of income per share was earned in the form of a dividend on the activity date.”; ¶[0128]: “… in Step S94, a distribution or withdrawal amount is determined ...”)
generating equitable payment instructions for the investor based on the calculated income payable; (¶[0058]: “The terms "distribution outlet device", "DO device," and "advisor device" shall be synonymous and may refer to a device that may be capable of receiving instructions from an advisor and of communicating instructions to a server or controller. The instructions may indicate investments to sell, pricing information, benefits, offers, promotions, non-commercial messages, and NAY data.”; ¶[0082]: “The data storage device 304 may store a program 306 for controlling the processor 300. The processor 300 may perform instructions of the program 306, and thereby operate in accordance with the present invention.”)
Regarding the following limitation feature(s), Doney discloses:
storing, in the memory, the equitable payment instructions; (¶[0032]: “The embodiments leverage distributed ledger technology (DLT) such as a blockchain. In a distributed ledger, transactions are recorded as "blocks" of data stored in a linear chain. Each block in the chain contains data and is cryptographically hashed. The blocks of hashed data draw upon the previous-block in the chain, ensuring all data in the overall "blockchain" has not been tampered with and remains unchanged. The chain is stored on multiple devices in a peer-to-peer network. The data stored in blocks can be automatically executable code known as a "smart contract.")
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Doney with the invention of Sullivan as disclosed above for the motivation of facilitating the recording of a transaction in a transparent and immutable manner.
Sullivan further discloses:
transmitting the equitable payment instructions to the custodian for equitable distribution to the investor of the payable income. (¶[0058]: “The terms "distribution outlet device", "DO device," and "advisor device" shall be synonymous and may refer to a device that may be capable of receiving instructions from an advisor and of communicating instructions to a server or controller. The instructions may indicate investments to sell, pricing information, benefits, offers, promotions, non-commercial messages, and NAY data.”; ¶[0082]: “The data storage device 304 may store a program 306 for controlling the processor 300. The processor 300 may perform instructions of the program 306, and thereby operate in accordance with the present invention.”)
Re Claim 2: Sullivan in view of Reuss in view of Burns in view of Doney discloses the method of claim 1. Regarding the following limitation feature(s), Reuss discloses:
wherein the step of computing the payable income comprises computing a distribution based on a respective period of ownership. (¶[0034]: “Prior to redemption of the shares 110, a user of the system must exercise a qualifying event 108. Qualifying events and redemption are discussed in more detail below. In general, a qualifying event is an event that triggers the vesting of the shares in the purchaser. Vesting, for the purposes of this disclosure, refers to a particular state of shares, such characterized as being redeemable.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Reuss with the invention of Sullivan as disclosed above for the motivation of facilitating the redemption of shares in a subsequent transaction in an effective and organized manner.
Re Claim 3: Sullivan in view of Reuss in view of Burns in view of Doney discloses the method of claim 2. Sullivan further discloses:
wherein the step of computing the payable income further comprises computing a distribution to an investor that sells the security prior to the end of the payment period. (¶[0115]: “… monthly distribution amounts may be based on a withdrawal percentage of the value of each of the individual income generating investments at the end the year but the amount of a raise from a given investment may be limited to a "withdrawal cap" percentage of the prior year's distribution amount.”)
Re Claim 4: Sullivan in view of Reuss in view of Burns in view of Doney discloses the method of claim 3. Sullivan further discloses:
wherein the investor is compensated for a partial period of ownership during the payment period by proportionally calculating a duration of ownership when computing the ending share-interval value. (¶[0033]: “Customers are "paid" dividends based on the allocation of shares 107.”)
Re Claim 5: Sullivan in view of Reuss in view of Burns in view of Doney discloses the method of claim 1. Regarding the following limitation feature(s), Reuss discloses:
wherein the share-interval duration and payment frequency are configurable parameters set by the security issuer to enable income calculations and distributions on any desired time basis. (¶[0034]: “Prior to redemption of the shares 110, a user of the system must exercise a qualifying event 108. Qualifying events and redemption are discussed in more detail below. In general, a qualifying event is an event that triggers the vesting of the shares in the purchaser. Vesting, for the purposes of this disclosure, refers to a particular state of shares, such characterized as being redeemable.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Reuss with the invention of Sullivan as disclosed above for the motivation of facilitating the redemption of shares in a subsequent transaction in an effective and organized manner.
Re Claim 6: Sullivan in view of Reuss in view of Burns in view of Doney discloses the method of claim 1. Sullivan doesn’t explicitly disclose:
wherein deleting the ending share-interval value of the previous share-interval significantly reduces data storage requirements and speeds up processing times of the system compared to storing all individual share-interval values.
Burns, however, makes this teaching in a related endeavor (¶[0099]: “… a user could modify the trading interface 600 according to the user's preferences. For example, a user may wish to view only the consolidated depth columns, rather than the combination of both, the consolidated and individual tradeable object columns. … FIG. 11 is a block diagram illustrating a trading interface 1100
providing a consolidated market information display type. In one embodiment, a trader could activate the trading interface of this type by activating a pop-up menu and selecting a "consolidated only" selection choice. The pop-up interface could be activated upon detecting a predetermined user input …”; ¶[0102]: “… As shown in relation to FIG. 13, a trader may wish to view market information corresponding to two or more tradeable objects that trade using different tick intervals. In such an embodiment, the cells corresponding to the non-tradeable price levels will be unpopulated since there will be no quantities available at those price levels. To avoid showing empty spaces, a trader may wish to consolidate the price levels and their corresponding bid and ask quantities. If price consolidation is used, two or more price levels may be combined into a single "consolidated" price level, and the
outstanding bid and ask quantities of the consolidated price levels may then be the sum of the outstanding quantities of the un-consolidated price levels that have been combined to form the consolidated price level. Using price consolidation, a trading screen may then display information from a greater number of price levels on the trading screen than it would be able if it did not use price consolidation.”; ¶[0103]: “However, when the prices and the corresponding quantities are consolidated, some of the information … will not be shown. For example, if two bid prices are consolidated, a trader will be able to see only the combined quantity corresponding to the consolidated prices, …”; ¶[0108]: “… if more than two price levels are consolidated, more than two better than best quantity values could be displayed in relation to a corresponding consolidated price level.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Burns with the invention of Sullivan as disclosed above for the motivation of facilitating enhanced the assimilation of information in a market trading environment in an enhanced/efficient manner.
Re Claim 7: Sullivan in view of Reuss in view of Burns in view of Doney discloses the method of claim 1. Sullivan further discloses:
encrypting the payment instructions before transmission to ensure secure data communication. (¶[0055]: “…Servers may include facilities to support secure communications using encryption or the like.”)
Re Claim 8: Sullivan in view of Reuss in view of Burns in view of Doney discloses the method of claim 1. Sullivan further discloses:
wherein prior to processing, the processing system validates the transaction data.
([0096]: “… a portfolio performance database 312 is used to report information about a portfolio's performance broken down to the level of the particular investments' performance.”)
Re Claim 9: Sullivan in view of Reuss in view of Burns in view of Doney discloses the method of claim 1. Regarding the following limitation feature(s), Reuss discloses:
recording one or more of the transaction data, the ending share-interval, and the payment instructions on a decentralized ledger. (¶[0032]: “The embodiments leverage distributed ledger technology (DLT) such as a blockchain. In a distributed ledger, transactions are recorded as "blocks" of data stored in a linear chain. Each block in the chain contains data and is cryptographically hashed. The blocks of hashed data draw upon the previous-block in the chain, ensuring all data in the overall "blockchain" has not been tampered with and remains unchanged. The chain is stored on multiple devices in a peer-to-peer network. The data stored in blocks can be automatically executable code known as a "smart contract.")
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Doney with the invention of Sullivan as disclosed above for the motivation of facilitating the recording of a transaction in a transparent and immutable manner.
Re Claim 10: Sullivan in view of Reuss in view of Burns in view of Doney discloses the method of claim 1. Regarding the following limitation feature(s), Reuss discloses:
wherein the transaction data comprises one or more of a timestamp, an investor identifier identifying an investor, a transaction amount, and a security identifier identifying the security. ; (¶[0030]: “The transaction process 100 begins with an identification of a eligible transaction 102 ( e.g., the purchase of a good or service by the purchaser 54 from the merchant 52 in coordination with the exchange system 56). The execution of the transaction includes the identification of the goods and/or services to be associated with the transaction, the settling of the terms, including consideration (e.g., money to be paid) for the goods and/or services and completion of the transaction”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Reuss with the invention of Sullivan as disclosed above for the motivation of facilitating the redemption of shares in a subsequent transaction in an effective and organized manner.
Re Claim 11: Claim 11, as best understood by the Examiner, encompasses the same or substantially the same scope as claim 1. Accordingly, claim 11 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 1.
Re Claim 12: Claim 12, as best understood by the Examiner, encompasses the same or substantially the same scope as claim 8. Accordingly, claim 12 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 8.
Re Claim 13: Claim 13, as best understood by the Examiner, encompasses the same or substantially the same scope as claim 4. Accordingly, claim 13 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 4.
Re Claim 14: Claim 14, as best understood by the Examiner, encompasses the same or substantially the same scope as claim 6. Accordingly, claim 14 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 6.
Re Claim 15: Claim 15, as best understood by the Examiner, encompasses the same or substantially the same scope as claim 5. Accordingly, claim 15 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 5.
Re Claim 16: Claim 16, as best understood by the Examiner, encompasses the same or substantially the same scope as claim 9. Accordingly, claim 16 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 9.
Re Claim 17: Claim 17, as best understood by the Examiner, encompasses the same or substantially the same scope as claim 7. Accordingly, claim 17 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 7.
Re Claim 18: Claim 18, as best understood by the Examiner, encompasses the same or substantially the same scope as claim 10. Accordingly, claim 18 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 10.
Conclusion
The prior art(s) made of record and not relied upon is/are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Thompson (US 2013/0041791 A1) discloses a private equity accounting and reporting system and method. The present disclosure relates to accounting and reporting specialized data for private equity funds, and more particularly for a method of configuring a general ledger to facilitate industry-specific reporting.
Comly et al. (US 2015/0058195 A1) discloses a system and method for monitoring an equity rights transaction for strategic investors in a securities exchange. A system and method for monitoring an equity rights transaction for strategic investors in a securities exchange. More specifically, a technological infrastructure which monitors an equity rights program in which units representing the right to acquire equity in an exchange or an exchange's parent holding company are issued to a participating member in exchange for a cash payment and the achievement of certain volume thresholds on the exchange over a specified period.
Claims 1-18 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Clifford Madamba whose telephone number is 571-270-1239. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thu 7:30-5:00 EST Alternate Fridays.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ryan Donlon, can be reached at 571-272-3602. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CLIFFORD B MADAMBA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692