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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 08/07/2025 and 10/29/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Status of Claims
This Office action is in reply to filing by applicant on 08/07/2025.
Claims 1 – 31 have been cancelled.
Claims 32 – 115 have been previously presented.
Claims 116 and 117 are new.
Claims 32 – 117 are pending.
This action is made non-final.
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 32 – 117 are rejected pursuant to 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 32 – 74, 98 – 100, 104 – 106, 110 – 112, 116, and 117 are directed to a method (process) and claims 75 - 97, 101 – 103, 107 – 109, and 113 – 115 are directed to a system (machine), The claims therefore constitute eligible statutory categories of an invention. (Step 1: YES).
Independent claim 75 is here analyzed (it’s representative, for 35 USC 101 purposes, of all claims herein, including independent claims 32, 98, 101, 104, 107, 110, and 113).
Claim 75 recites the limitations of:
A system for enabling interactive financial decision-making, the system comprising one or more processors and one or more non-transitory computer- readable memories coupled to the one or more processors and configured with instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause execution of a computer application on a client device based on a hierarchical portfolio associated with a user, the hierarchical portfolio being organized by one or more dimensions, the system configured to: receive a first input representing a financial request related to the hierarchical portfolio; submit, to an investment system, a data payload comprising or referencing the hierarchical portfolio and the first input; receive an Artificial Intelligence (AI) view generated by the investment system based at least in part on user data, the Al view comprising one or more personalized suggestions, wherein individual ones of the personalized suggestions are mapped to respective structural locations within the hierarchical portfolio; generate a graphical representation of the hierarchical portfolio and the Al view for presentation on a display associated with the system, wherein individual ones of the personalized suggestions are presented at their respective structural locations as interactive elements comprising content represented by one or more media types; generate a prompt for the user to accept at least one of the personalized suggestions; and receive a second input indicating a decision to accept at least one of the personalized suggestions.
The claims recite the abstract idea of:
providing suggestions to a user based on the user’s portfolio
The above abstract idea recites a fundamental economic practice and/or commercial interaction, i.e, providing suggestions to a user based on the user’s portfolio.
The above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic practice and/or commercial interaction, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, all independent claims as above represented recite an abstract idea.
The above bolded terms of the independent claim 75 recite: one or more processors and one or more non-transitory computer- readable memories coupled to the one or more processors and configured with instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause execution of a computer application on a client device and presentation on a display associated with the system. Said bolded independent claim terms are just applying generic computer components / computer driven systems to perform the above noted abstract idea limitations. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. Any other potential computer related generic components claimed only serve to generally link the above noted abstract idea to them, without more. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea).
As to the dependent claims 33 – 74, 76 – 97, 99, 100, 102, 103, 105, 106, 108, 109, 111, 112, 114, 115 - 117 they further refine the above noted abstract idea set forth by the independent claims. Examiner further notes that there are no additional (to the computer related hardware as noted above) computer / computer driven terms set forth in the dependent claims: These dependent claims are also being applied as tools to the abstract idea, without more. Only through dependency do the dependent claims generally link the abstract idea articulated herein as above to generic computer technology.
The computer hardware/software above bolded are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., generic processors, computer systems, and memories all performing generic computer functions), and the same amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component(s). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. That said, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additionally claimed elements in the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application).
All claims above reviewed also do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. When considered separately and as an ordered combination, the claims do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to perform a judicial exception by applying generic computer components and thereby automating the process cannot provide an inventive concept.
This Application's lack of providing significantly more than the judicial exception is also referred to as its claims lacking an “inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f) where applying a computer as a tool to the abstract idea is not indicative of significantly more. The above detailed non-computer related elements do not change the outcome of the analysis, as they simply further limit ways which the abstract idea may be performed. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more than the judicial exception).
In summary, the claim set reviewed as above does not include any additional elements that integrate its abstract idea into a practical application, or that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination.
Claims 32 - 117 are not patent-eligible pursuant to 35 USC 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 32 – 117 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the additional rejection herein pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 101 and also rewritten in independent claim form. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Independently, while the claims' limitations most recently set forth herein may individually be disclosed by the prior art, the claims as a whole are not obvious because the examiner would have to improperly use their separate limitations as a road map to combine them.
CONCLUSION
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached form 892.
Rollins (US20170193619A1) – A system and method is provided for the facilitation of secure intellectual property transactions. The system may receive intellectual property information from system users. The system may match system users based on the provided intellectual property information to facilitate the initiation of an intellectual property transaction. The system may further provide a secure audit trail of all activity that occurs surrounding the intellectual property transaction, thereby increasing levels of trust between the involved parties.
Guan (US20200153626A1) - Methods, systems, and apparatus, including computer programs encoded on computer storage media, for updating data in blockchain are provided. One of the methods includes: obtaining one or more requests for updating a plurality of pieces of data in one or more blockchains and updating the plurality of pieces of data in the one or more blockchains.
Rodriguez (US20170206382A1) - A transform-enabled integrated circuit for use in cryptographic proof-of-work systems is provided. The transform-enabled integrated circuit includes a transformation block embedded among other circuitry components within the cryptographic datapath of the transform-enabled integrated circuit. The transformation block may be configured at a time subsequent to the manufacture of the integrated circuit to embody as circuitry any one of a plurality of mathematical transformation functions, thus enabling a user to systemically modify the results of cryptographic operations performed by the integrated circuit while retaining the high performance and efficiency characteristics of application-specific integrated circuits. Embodiments of the technology disclosed herein provides an hereto unachievable level of flexibility in the deployment of application-specific integrated circuits within proof-of-work verification systems, such as private block chain systems, public block chain systems, digital rights management, secure token and other cryptography-related fields.
Ozvat (US20150081462A1) - Systems and methods for secure virtualized intermediated configuration and control of payment processing peripheral devices, as may be embodied in a SNIPP system, are provided. Such systems and methods enable the request of purchaser payment information from payment processing peripheral device(s) on behalf of a POS system and the aggregation and association of that purchaser payment information with a corresponding purchase transaction received from the POS system. The purchase transaction and the payment transaction are aggregated and thereby associated; and the resulting aggregated payment transaction is submitted to an electronic payments processing facility that responds with a confirmation indicating ‘acceptance’ or ‘denial’ of the payment transaction. The confirmation is relayed to the POS system and possibly to the payment processing peripheral device(s) such that it may be displayed to the purchaser and/or an attendant.
Achuthan (US20210056624A1) - A unique framework is used for securing services, its components, and the communication channels in a digital asset exchange. The security framework may encompass a combination of authentication, limited access between every participating services (e.g., actors, machines, and components), and a hybrid cryptographic communication channel using both asymmetric and symmetric encryption.
Bendfeldt (US20190042981A1) - Systems and methods for customizing an output based on user data are described herein. An example method for customizing an output based on user data may commence with capturing, by at least one sensor, the user data. The method may continue with analyzing, by at least one computing resource, the user data received from the at least one sensor. The method may further include continuously customizing, by an adaptive interface, output data using at least one machine learning technique based on the analysis of the user data. The customized output data may be intended to elicit a personalized change.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW COBB whose telephone number is (571) 272-3850. The examiner can normally be reached 9 - 5, M - F.
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 call examiner Cobb as above, or 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, Peter Nolan, can be reached at (571) 270-7016. 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.
/MATTHEW COBB/Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/PETER D NOLAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661
