DETAILED ACTION
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/06/2025 has been entered.
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, 4, 6, 21, 22, 24-30, 33-39, and 49-52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Analysis
Claim 1: Ineligible.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim encompasses a computer system (e.g., hardware such as processor and memory) for facilitating funding of financial assets. The system is directed to a machine, 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 describes the steps of receiving, via a first computing device, custodial account information from a first user custodian, the account information comprising personal information of a second user beneficiary; receiving, from the first user, a set of account configuration parameters;
creating a custodial account with the second user as the beneficiary of the account; establishing a first communication link with the first computing device based on the first user requesting access to the account; filter, format and transmitting, via the established first communication link for display of a first user-specific computer implemented graphical user interface to the first computing device, wherein the first user-specific computer implements graphical user interface is both filtered and formatted to display only information customized to the role associated with the first user custodian and only allows user input customized to the role associated with the first user custodian, such that the first user custodian is only presented information that is associated with the role of the first user custodian and not other information that is restricted for viewing, access, and control by the first user custodian; displaying, via the first graphical user interface, a first interactive visualization associated with one or more assets associated with the second user beneficiary, wherein a user interaction with the first interactive visualization comprises instructions to alter one or more assets within the account; establishing a second communication link with a second computing device associated with a second user based on the second user requesting access to information associated with the account; filter, format and transmitting, via the established second communication link, for display a second user-specific computer implemented graphical user interface to the first or the second user, wherein the second user-specific computer implements graphical user interface is both filtered and formatted to display only information customized to a role associated with the second user and only allows user input customized to the role associated with the second user, such that the second user is only presented information that is associated with the role of the second user and not other information that is restricted from viewing, access, and control by the second user, wherein the second user is restricted from altering assets within the account via the second graphical user interface based on the set of account configuration parameters based on account restrictions determined by the first user custodian; establishing a third communication link with a third computing device associated with a third user based on the third user requesting access to information associated with the account; filter, format and transmit, via the established third communication link, for displaying a third user-specific computer implemented graphical user interface to a third user on the third computing device, wherein the third user graphical user interface is different from the first and second graphical user interfaces, is both filtered and formatted to display only information customized to a role associated with the third user and only allows user input customized to the role associated with the third party, such that the third user is only presented information that is associated with the role of the third user and not other information that is restricted from viewing, access, and control by the third user, wherein the graphical user interface for the third user restricts the third user from controlling access to the custodian account, and comprises information regarding one or more assets that the third user may fund for the second user beneficiary; receiving from the third user, via the third communication link, information associated with an account of the third user designated for use in funding the account of the second user; maintaining a social network communication link between the first, second, and third user interfaces and computing devices associated with the first, second, and third users to facilitate communication and notification of gift giving events associated with the second user beneficiary via the respective first, second, and third computer graphical interfaces, where such graphical user interfaces are configured to facilitate communication and notifications; receiving, via the first or second communication links, data relating to an event, via the first graphical user interface by the first user or the second graphical user interface by the first or second user via the network communication link; automatically generating a message containing, via the third communication link, an event announcement relating to the event; transmitting the message to one or more third users, the event announcement comprising instructions for navigating to a third graphical user interface and contributing to the account: providing, via the first communication link or the third communication link, for display in at least one of the first or third graphical user interfaces at least one of a web link or a proxy server link to an institution selling investments, which comprises providing a link between said at least one database and one or more computer-based systems affiliated with one or more sellers of financial investments, wherein said link prompts the first user to purchase one or more financial investments from the seller; receiving, via the first communication link or the third communication link, input indicating a selection of the web link or proxy server link and directing the first or third graphical user interface to the web page of the institution selling investments associated with the selected web or proxy server link for the purpose of purchasing assets for the benefit of the second user; when the first or third user purchases a financial investment from the seller to benefit a second user beneficiary, send confirmation of the purchase via said link from said computer-based system of the seller to at least one of the first and second computing device; receiving, via the first communication link or the third communication link, confirmation data relating to a funding of one or more assets in the account from the institution selling investments by the first or third graphical user for the second user beneficiary; automatically electronically updating the account to reflect the funding based on the set of account configuration parameters; transmitting, via the first communication link and/or the third communication link, for display in at least one of the first or third graphical user interfaces updated account information reflecting the funding of the account of the second user; send notice of the confirmation to the second user beneficiary via said second user computer implemented graphical user interface; and transmitting, via the third communication link, for display in the third graphical user interface at least one actionable link to an online account wherein the third user may contribute funds for investment by the first user on the second user’s behalf, wherein such funding is electronically linked to the account of the third user designated for use in funding the account of the second user, wherein said system provides secure display and access to information to users of a social network with investment information as focus, so that information is handled in a secure manner, only displayed based on user’s role in the system, and can only be manipulated based on a user’s role, while also allowing for social interaction and event notification to users.
The claim describes several steps for funding financial assets on behalf of a beneficiary and providing same in an (social) electronic network platform using varying graphical interfaces that depends on type of user, such that the custodian’s interface is permitted to alter assets within an account, while the beneficiary’s interface is restricted from altering said assets within the account but is able to launch educational or gaming software. In order words, the claim describes the underlying scheme by which third parties participate in funding investment of financial assets that is set up by a custodian for the benefit of a beneficiary. The limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations via manual human activity, but for the recitation of generic computer components such as the establishment of various communication links with computing devices with graphical user interfaces. That is, other than reciting these generic computer components, nothing in the claim precludes the limitations from practically being performed by organizing human activity. These claimed invention falls under the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping (Step 2A1-Yes).
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if it is integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional limitations of various generic computing devices (including various graphical interfaces) performing generic computer functions in a networking environment. These computer devices are recited at a high level of generality. Also, using three-way communications on the Internet with customized user web interfaces (includes the aforementioned formatting) for each user based on user’s role with tools and features specific to each user is an insignificant extra-solution activity. These features, even in combination, as recited in the claimed invention 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 simply a field of use that is an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The claim is directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A2-No).
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations 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 do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and are simply a field of use that is an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., using three-way communications on the Internet with customized user web interfaces for each user based on user’s role with tools and features specific to each user cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Because the step of using three-way communications on the Internet with customized user web interfaces for each user based on user’s role with tools and features specific to each user, was considered to be extra-solution activities in Step 2A, it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field. The disclosure does not provide any indication that this step is anything other than a routine multi-way communications network using devices that provides restricted access to resources based on user’s role, and Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs., court decisions cited in 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 generic manner (Berkheimer option 2). Also, Ridgeway et al. (USPAP 2004/0019494, with 1/31/2003 filing date) at paragraphs 0043, 0050 & figs. 2 and 4, describes the concept of using multi-way communications on the Internet with customized user web interfaces for each user based on user’s role with tools and features specific to each user is well-understood as at the time of the invention (Berkheimer option 3). Examiner further notes that this concept is notoriously old and well known (Berkheimer option 4). Also, in Prism Techs. V. T-Mobile (non-precedential), providing restricted access to resources was deemed abstract. Each of the communication links in the instant claims provides restricted or customized GUI based on the user’s role. The user’s role can be determined based on user’s log in or authentication information. Accordingly, a conclusion that these steps are well-understood, routine and conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer options 2-4.
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 limitations 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). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 49 is a computer readable medium claim equivalent of claim 1, and are similarly rejection using the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 4 recites the activity of the first user purchasing an investment and designating a beneficiary. These further narrow the abstract idea, but do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. They do not resolve the issues raised in the independent claim 1. The claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 6 recites the content of the second user interface. These further narrow the abstract idea, but do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. They do not resolve the issues raised in the independent claim 1. The claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claims 21-22 further recite the type of events and forms of event announcement. These further narrow the abstract idea, but do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. They do not resolve the issues raised in the independent claim 1. The claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claims 24 and 25 recite the receiving instructions from a user to communicate an event to another user(s). These further narrow the abstract idea, but do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. They do not resolve the issues raised in the independent claim 1. The claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claims 26-28 recite automatically communicating, targeting, or customizing event announcement to users based on stored event information. These further narrow the abstract idea, but do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. They do not resolve the issues raised in the independent claim 1. The claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claims 29-30 recite that the event announcement is financial partners, or related to a selected partner. These further narrow the abstract idea, but do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. They do not resolve the issues raised in the independent claim 1. The claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claims 33-35, and 50-51 recite the interactions of the user with the interface such as prompting users to transmit appreciation, allocate an amount to charity, or designate financial goals to be transmitted to another user, receive data relating to opening of a second custodial financial account. These further narrow the abstract idea, but do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. They do not resolve the issues raised in the independent claim 1. The claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 36 specifies that second beneficiary is a minor, and with the user interface having appropriate theme for the age group. These further narrow the abstract idea, but do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. They do not resolve the issues raised in the independent claim 1. The claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claims 37 and 38 recite that the type of financial account, and that the type of financial asset purchased or funded. These further narrow the abstract idea, but do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. They do not resolve the issues raised in the independent claim 1. The claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 39 recites communicating information regarding the growth and/or management of the assets funded by the third party. These further narrow the abstract idea, but do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. They do not resolve the issues raised in the independent claim 1. The claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 52 recites the electronically linking devices and receiving information about user messages encouraging other users to either open accounts or make a donation for investing. These further narrow the abstract idea, but do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. They do not resolve the issues raised in the independent claim 1. The claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/06/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims are patentable in light of the August 4, 2025 §101 Examination Guidelines.
Examiner has reviewed this latest guideline in view of the current §101 rejection. However, these guidelines are not applicable here because the claimed invention is not grouped under the “mental processes” grouping. The present claimed invention falls under the “certain methods of organizing human activity.” Therefore, Applicant’s argument is moot.
Examiner notes that the originally filed disclosure does not explicitly disclose the “filtering,” and “formatting” steps as recited in the claims. The entire specification is silent on the nature of the “filtering,” and “formatting”. In that regard, the Examiner interprets the “filtering,” and “formatting” as closely as what is disclosed in the Applicant’s originally filed disclosure.
Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. Applicant asserts that the claimed subject matter is an “improvement in the functioning of computers” (citing Core Wireless (CWL), Data Engine Techs (DET), and Trading Technologies Int’l. (TTI). Applicant pointed to the customized graphical user interfaces that acts as a central proxy for multiple systems.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea as explained in the analysis above. In CWL the court found that, “Although the generic idea of summarizing information certainly existed prior to the invention, these claims are directed to a particular manner of summarizing and presenting information in electronic devices. … These limitations disclose a specific manner of displaying a limited set of information to the user, rather than using conventional user interface methods to display a generic index on a computer. Like the improved systems claimed in Enfish, Thales, Visual Memory, and Finjan, these claims recite a specific improvement over prior systems, resulting in an improved user interface for electronic devices.” However, the present case is different: the focus of the claimed invention is not on how information is being displayed on an interface similar to CWL. Rather, the interface varies for different users depending on whether they are the custodian, beneficiary or a contributor. Therefore, CWL does not apply here.
DET also does not apply here because the instant claimed invention is not directed to a three-dimensional electronic spreadsheet that offers improvement in creating, editing, and using spreadsheets to organize and process data.
Applicant further asserts that the invention is analogous to the “graphical user interface” in Trading Technologies (TTI).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claimed invention in TTI was deemed statutory not because of the mere “graphical user interface” that displays information such as indicators. Rather, the Court recognized that the focus of the invention was directed to the “structure” of the GUI that addressed a specific problem in the state of the art. In the TTI decision, the Court agreed the patents are directed to improvements in existing graphical user interface devices that have no “pre-electronic trading analog,” and recite more than “‘setting, displaying, and selecting’ data or information that is visible on the [graphical user interface] device.” Id.
More importantly, the Court further explained that the claims require specific, structured GUI paired with a prescribed functionality directly related to the GUI’s structure that addresses to and resolves a specifically identified problem in the prior state of the art.
The instant invention does not have similar features. Therefore, TTI decision does not apply to the claimed invention.
Applicant’s citation of Prism Techs. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc. is misleading. The CAFC decision decided on June 23, 2017 (non-precedential), reversed the District Court decision on patent eligibility under 101. The decision was previous attached for your reference (See pages 6-7). In fact, the decision supports Examiner’s rationale for patent ineligibility in the instant case.
Applicant further argues that the Example 42 is similar to the cited filtering and formatting of the claimed invention.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The filtering and formatting in the instant claimed invention is clearly different from that of the Example 42. The filtering and formatting here simply restrict user’s access and interaction with the interface based on user’s role. There is no actual “filtering” and “formatting” of data from one format to another as disclosed in the Example 42. If Applicant believes that is explicit or implicit filtering and formatting of data from one format to another similar to Example 42, Applicant is requested to provide such support in the original filed disclosure. Even if the feature is supported in the original disclosure, simple filtering and formatting information from one format to another without “significantly more” is still considered an abstract process. See Bascom Global Internet Service, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, AT&T Corp. Here, The Court agreed with “the district court that filtering content is an abstract idea because it is a longstanding, well-known method of organizing human behavior, similar to concepts previously found to be abstract.” Id. At 12:17-20. However, Bascom was deemed eligible because of the “inventive concept” that transforms the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. That is, the claimed invention amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself under step 2B. When viewing the instant claim limitations either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Farias (USPAP 2006/0206416) teaches financial collaboration networks adapted to permit a plurality of group collaborators to perform financial transactions with a plurality of users (abstract).
Winklevoss et al. (USPAP 2004/0162775) teaches a system and method for donor-directed asset management (abstract).
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 OLABODE AKINTOLA whose telephone number is (571)272-3629. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 8:30a-6:00p.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abhishek Vyas can be reached on 571-270-1836. 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.
/OLABODE AKINTOLA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691