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
This action is in response to remarks received 08/10/2026; and claims earliest priority from 10-2024-0066288, filed 05/22/2024.
Claim 9 is cancelled and claims 10 and 11 newly added.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 3-5, filed 08/10/2026, with respect to rejection of claims under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 103 rejection of the claims has been withdrawn.
Claims 1-8 & 10-11 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/10/2026, regarding the rejection under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argues that amended claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea because the claimed subject matter improves the technology of financial reporting and integrates the alleged abstract idea into a practical application. In particular, Applicant relies on the newly recited statistical processing and display limitations and the limitation that the converted valuation reduces or eliminates fluctuation in the underlying asset value. Applicant further points to the Specification as explaining that use of the estimated value based on a reference value allows investment performance to be more readily evaluated despite changes in the underlying asset value.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The asserted improvement concerns the manner in which financial information is calculated, evaluated, and presented rather than an improvement to the functioning of a computer or another technology or technical field. Claim 1 determines a reference value, converts a valuation based on a calculated variability ratio, performs statistical processing on financial data, and displays the resulting information. The additional limitation that the converted valuation reduces or eliminates fluctuation in the underlying asset value characterizes the result of the financial valuation generated by the claimed analysis, but does not recite a technological mechanism that improves the operation of the computer itself or another technological process.
Applicant’s reliance on the Specification does not alter this conclusion. The portions identified by Applicant explain that the estimated value based on a reference value may reduce or minimize the impact of changes in the underlying asset price so that profit or loss from investment activities can be more readily identified. Thus, the identified benefit concerns the usefulness and interpretability of the resulting financial information. Improving the ability to evaluate investment performance or discern profit and loss does not, without more, establish an improvement to computer functionality or another technology.
Applicant also argues that the computer generates a particular display based on the processed information. However, claim 1 recites displaying the processed results in one or more formats selected from a graph, a table, or textual form. The claim does not recite a particular technological improvement in how a computer generates or displays such information. Rather, the display presents the result of the underlying financial and mathematical analysis. Accordingly, this limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Applicant’s reliance on McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc. is also not persuasive. In McRO, the claims rules were evaluated in the context of a particular technological process for computer animation. Here, the recited rules and calculations are used to determine and present an investment valuation. The claimed variability ratios, statistical processing, and resulting reduction or elimination of fluctuation concern the financial information being evaluated and presented, rather than providing a technological improvement comparable to the particular computer animation process at issue in McRO. Accordingly, the claims remain directed to the abstract financial and mathematical analysis notwithstanding the additional specificity of the recited calculations.
Applicant further contends that amended claim 1 reflects a specific set of rules that restricts the claimed process and therefore is not abstract. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Merely providing greater specificity as to the rules or mathematical operations used to perform an abstract financial evaluation does not, by itself, remove the claim from the abstract idea categories. Here, the claimed rules specify how financial values are selected, converted, statistically processed, and presented for purposes of investment evaluation. These limitations therefore further define the abstract financial and mathematical analysis rather than applying it through a technological improvement.
When the claim is considered as a whole under Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The computer is used to perform the recited financial calculations and processing and to display the resulting information, without a recited improvement to the computer itself or another technology.
Further, under Step 2B, the additional elements, individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. the computer performs the recited processing and presenting of information in its ordinary capacity, and the claims do not recite an additional technological feature that provides an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract financial and mathematical analysis into patent eligible subject matter.
Claims 10 and 11 likewise do not overcome the rejection. Claim 10 further specifies setting the variability ratio to 1 for certain assets, while claim 11 further specifies analyzing a correlation with the underlying asset value and using a resulting figure to set the variability ratio. These limitations further define the mathematical analysis used in performing the investment evaluation but do not provide a technological improvement or otherwise integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor do they provide significantly more than the judicial exception.
For the above reasoning, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive, and the rejection of claims 1-8 & 10-11 under 35 USC 101 is maintained.
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 1-8 & 10-11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Claims 1-8 & 10-11 recite a process and therefore satisfy Step 1.
Under Step 2A, Prong One, claim 1 recites a method of investment evaluation using an estimated value based on a reference value, comprising steps of: (i) determining a reference value selected from historical or future values of an underlying asset; and (ii) converting, based on a variability ratio calculated for each of the plurality of investment assets under an assumption that the underlying asset value at an evaluation time changes to the determined reference value, a valuation of an investment asset set, and using the converted valuation as an estimated value based on a reference value; and (iii) performing statistical processing on one or more of a mean, variance, and standard deviation derived form historical data or increase/decrease records of the estimated value based on a reference value. These limitations involve collecting and analyzing financial information, applying rules and mathematical calculations to that information, and generating an estimated valuation for evaluation an investment. Such operations constitute concepts relating to organizing human activity, including financial evaluation and investment analysis, as well as mathematical concepts and mental processes involving evaluation, judgment, and mathematical calculation, which are recognized categories of abstract ideas. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2); see also Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A. and SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC. The claimed investment evaluation and valuation processing further constitute fundamental economic practices and methods of organizing human activity. Claim 1 additionally recites displaying the processed results in one or more formats selected from a graph, a table, or textual form, which is considered below as an additional element.
The dependent claims do not alter this conclusion. For example, claim 2 further specifies selecting a highest historical value, which is an additional data selection rule, claim 5 recites calculating metrics such as growth rate or slope, which are mathematical concepts; claim 6 recites displaying data, which is insignificant post-solution activity; claim 8 recites time series analysis, which is mathematical processing of data, which constitutes mathematical processing of financial data; claim 10 further recites setting the variability ration to 1 for assets that are not affected by changes in the underlying asset value, thereby further defining the mathematical treatment used in the investment evaluation. Claim 11 further recites, for assets affected by changes in the underlying asset value, analyzing a correlation with the underlying asset value and using a resulting figure to set the variability ratio, which further constitutes mathematical analysis of financial data. These limitations refine or add detail to the abstract financial evaluation and mathematical analysis and do not change its character.
Under Step 2A, Prong Two, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims are implemented on a generic computer and do not recite any specific improvement to computer functionality or to another technology. The recited determining, converting, statistical processing, and displaying operations use the computer to perform financial data analysis and present the resulting information. Although claim 1 now recites that the converted valuation “reduces or eliminates fluctuation in the underlying asset value”, this limitation describes the result or characteristic of the financial valuation produced by the recited analysis; it does not recite an improvement in the operation of the computer or another technological process. Likewise, displaying the processed results in a graph, table, or textual form merely presents the results of the analysis and does not impose a meaningful technological limitation on the judicial exception. Accordingly, when considered as a whole, the claims use a computer to implement the abstract financial and mathematical analysis and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional elements, including the use of a computer to perform the recited steps and displaying the processed results in a graph, table, or textual form, perform generic data-processing and output functions and do not provide an inventive concept sufficient to transform the judicial exception into patent eligible subject matter. The dependent claims similarly add further financial data selection, mathematical analysis, and presentation of information and do not provide an inventive concept.
The recited computer performs only generic functions of receiving, processing, and displaying data, which are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously recognized by the courts.
When considered as an ordered combination, the claim elements amount to no more than the abstract idea implemented using generic computing components performing their ordinary functions. Therefore, the claims do not provide an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.
Accordingly, claims 1-8 & 10-11 are not directed to patent-eligible subject matter, and the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TONY P KANAAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2481. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 7:30am - 3:30 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Gart can be reached at 5712723955. The 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 and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/T.P.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3696
/MATTHEW S GART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3696
Prosecution Insights