DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 12, 2026, has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 4-6, 8, 10-13, 16, 18-23, 25-38, 40-65, 67-69, 72, 75-79, and 83-95 have been canceled. Claims 1-3, 7, 9, 14, 15, 17, 24, 39, 66, 70, 71, 73, 74, and 80-82 are pending and provided to be examined upon their merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 12, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. A response is provided below in bold where appropriate.
Applicant argues 35 USC §101 Rejection, starting pg. 14 of Remarks:
I.SUBJECT MATTER REJECTIONS
Claims 1-3, 7, 9, 14, 15, 17, 24, 39, 66, 70-71, 73, 74, and 80-82 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, as allegedly directed to unpatentable subject matter. The Office Action asserts that the "claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more." Office Action, Pages 11-12. Specifically, the Office Action asserts that "The claim recites elements, highlighted in bold above, which covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic practice (e.g., applying projection factors to the financial plan container that contains the client data) and managing personal behavior (e.g., incorporating the financial plan container into a client financial plan)." Office Action, Page 14. The Office Action asserts that Independent Claim 1 is directed to a fundamental economic practice. Office Action, Page 14. Applicant respectfully traverses and submits that Independent Claim 1, as amended, is directed to improvements to the functioning of a computer and thus is directed to eligible subject matter.
Applicant incorporates prior arguments made regarding subject matter eligibility by reference, and for brevity, specifically addresses the response to arguments made by the Office Action.
The Office Action appears to concede that Independent Claim 1 represents a technological improvement to an interface (see, e.g., "A non-conventional interface for financial planning is related to novelty and not improving technology. A novel abstract claim is still abstract" Office Action, Page 10). The Office Action continues, "The Core Wireless case was improving computer interface technology itself. This is different than using a computer for providing financial planning interfaces... If there is an improvement to computer or other technology, the specification should teach this and the improvement to technology should be claimed." Office Action, Page 11. Applicant respectfully submits that the Specification and Independent Claim 1 meet the standard set forth in the MPEP and in Federal Circuit precedent, specifically as exemplified in the Core Wireless case referenced below.
The invention of Core Wireless was improving an interface, which improved computer display technology. Respectfully, Applicant’s invention is “Devices, Methods And Systems Related To Automation That Provides Financial Planning Advice (Title). Therefore, Applicants invention is directed to providing financial planning advice.
The Office Action and the Applicant appear to agree that Independent Claim 1 represents "a non-conventional interface for financial planning," (Office Action, Page 8). specifically the language that recites "facilitating presentation, through a graphical user interface, of the at least one financial plan container that is configured to receive the client data, wherein the at least one financial plan container specifies a custom client-interface including one or more prompts defined by the financial plan container that is presented through the graphical user interface, and wherein each financial plan container comprises a narrative that includes one of an event, an occurrence, and a condition, and wherein each financial plan container defines a specification for the graphical user interface," and that specification is a custom client interface.
The rejection is not based on well-understood, routine and conventional.
It is the financial plan container, described in detail in both Independent Claim 1 and in the specification, that defines a specification for the graphical user interface that is a custom client interface. Claim 1 does not merely recite a graphical user interface, but, analogously to Core Wireless, "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." Core Wireless, Page 9. The fundamental holding of Core Wireless is that improvements to a graphical user interface are in fact technological improvements (see, e.g., Core Wireless, Pages 8-9, "[t]hese 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.") (emphasis added)
From Core Wireless, pg. 10…
“Rather than paging through multiple screens of options, “only three steps may be needed from start up to reaching the required data/functionality.” Id. at 3:2–3. This language clearly indicates that the claims are directed to an improvement in the functioning of computers, particularly those with small screens.
Because we hold that the asserted claims are not directed to an abstract idea, we do not proceed to the second step of the inquiry. The claims are patent eligible under § 101.”
Therefore, Core Wireless did not recite abstract claim elements. Further, the language indicated the claims were direct to an improvement in the function of computers, particularly those with small screens.
The Office Action's Response to Arguments argues that a financial plan container has "no definition as to exactly what a container encompasses and the steps that are used to create a container," (Office Action, Page 11), and "Respectfully, the financial plan container is never defined exactly as to what it is, and appears to be some type of software for organizing data," (Office Action, Page 5). Applicant respectfully disagrees. The financial plan container is specifically defined in the Specification and the Claims, including, just from the claim language that it is "at least partially based on a user interaction of a user with the computer," that it is "configured to receive and contain client data," that it includes a template of one or more variables "based on one or more of a type of the financial plan container and financial plan data, and wherein at least one variable of the template of variables is based on data inputted by another entity." The financial plan container specifies "a custom client interface including one or more prompts defined by the financial plan container that is presented through the graphical user interface, and wherein each financial plan container comprises a narrative that includes one of an event, an occurrence, and a condition, and wherein each financial plan container defines a specification for the graphical user interface that is configured to reduce a complexity of queries to the user." (Amended Independent Claim 1).
From Applicant’s argument above…
>>“The financial plan container is specifically defined in the Specification and the Claims, including, just from the claim language that it is "at least partially based on a user interaction of a user with the computer," that it is "configured to receive and contain client data," that it includes a template of one or more variables "based on one or more of a type of the financial plan container and financial plan data, and wherein at least one variable of the template of variables is based on data inputted by another entity."”<<
Therefore, Applicant is arguing a container contains client data that includes a template of variables.
From Applicant’s argument above…
>>“The financial plan container specifies "a custom client interface including one or more prompts defined by the financial plan container that is presented through the graphical user interface, and wherein each financial plan container comprises a narrative that includes one of an event, an occurrence, and a condition, and wherein each financial plan container defines a specification for the graphical user interface that is configured to reduce a complexity of queries to the user." (Amended Independent Claim 1).”<<
Therefore, Applicant above is arguing a financial plan container specifies a client interface including prompts defined by the financial plan container and comprises a narrative and defines a specification for a graphical user interface.
To clarify the record, the Examiner will provide a claim interpretation of container.
The above graphical user interface that is configured to reduce a complexity is recited at a high level of generality. It’s also intended use language as there is no guarantee complexity will be reduced.
Further, it’s been shown such interfaces are not enough to make abstract claims statutory.
From MPEP 2106.05(a) I viii, Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC…
“Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality:…
… viii. Arranging transactional information on a graphical user interface in a manner that assists traders in processing information more quickly, Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir.2019).”
Therefore, a graphical user interface that assists traders in processing information more quickly was not enough to make abstract claims statutory.
All of these features are specifically recited in the claim language, with the
Specification providing the illustration for why the claimed invention is an improvement over the existing technology. For example, this improvement is specifically called out in the Specification in that the Life Cards (e.g., containers), "may be tightly controlled to create a user interface in which the client is asked one or a series of simple questions, and for which limited input is accepted. The Life Card, which may have its own economic data associated with it, then can be combined with other Life Cards, which, when inputted into a forecasting model, allow a specifically tailored financial plan to be presented to the client, with minimal strain on the client's resources." Specification, Para. [0078].
It is the financial plan container, described in detail in both Independent Claim 1 and in the specification, that defines a specification for the graphical user interface that is a custom client interface. Claim 1 does not merely recite a graphical user interface, but, analogously to Core Wireless, "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." Core Wireless, Page 9.
As in Core Wireless, the financial plan container specifies a custom client
interface including one or more prompts defined by the financial plan container (i.e., a "specific manner of displaying a limited sent of information to the user"). Independent Claim 1 specifically sets out how a financial plan container, with the client data, specifies a custom client interface, including one or more prompts defined by the financial plan container, and how each financial plan container defines a specification for the graphical user interface." Moreover, the Specification describes how this represents an improvement to the graphical user interface, describing that the Life Cards (e.g., containers), "may be tightly controlled to create a user interface in which the client is asked one or a series of simple questions, and for which limited input is accepted. The Life Card, which may have its own economic data associated with it, then can be combined with other Life Cards, which, when inputted into a forecasting model, allow a specifically tailored financial plan to be presented to the client, with minimal strain on the client's resources." Specification, Para. [0078]. The Specification further states that each container has a specification for the user interface which is designed to reduce the complexity of the queries to the user." Specification, Para. [0082]. The explicit language of the claim is tied to the improvement to the graphical interface, with the support of the Specification. The Specification further provides examples and technical implementation at Para. [0088], which describes that "[i]t is one purpose of the system to generate prompts for inputs that allow even unsophisticated clients to provide all the necessary data to the system," and Para. [0082], which describes that the client "may be led to fill out various containers, e.g., a 'job,' container 210, which prompts the client 205 to answer basic questions about the client's job. Depending on the answers to the questions specified by the 'job' container 210, the 'job' container 210 may generate different questions."
From MPEP 2106.05(h) and limiting the practical application to a field of use…
“Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2AProng Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible “simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.”
Therefore, the financial plan container is limited to financial planning, which is a field of use.
The Office Action's reliance on MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) and the Intellectual
Ventures I case (see, e.g., Office Action, Pages 4-5) is insufficient to sustain a rejection, because Applicant is not solely relying on "financial aspects" of Independent Claim 1 or other "fundamental economic practice" to impart patentability. Applicant's Independent Claim 1 recites a specific improvement to "the functioning of the computer itself' or "any other technology or technical field." Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014), reinforced by Core Wireless's holding that "a specific manner of displaying a limited set of information to the user," is a technical improvement. Core Wireless, Page 9.
Core Wireless is not limited to a field of use such as financial planning. Also, it did not recite abstract elements.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, Applicant is willing to amend the independent claim to more clearly illustrate the improvement to existing technology implemented by the improved graphical user interface and the claimed invention. Applicant's amended Independent Claim 1 recites that the graphical user interface that is defined by the financial plan container is a specification "designed to reduce a complexity of queries to the user." Thus, Applicant is now explicitly, in amended Independent Claim 1, claiming the improvement to graphical user interfaces enabled by the claimed invention and supported in the Specification. At minimum, amended, Independent Claim 1 now meets the standard put forth in MPEP 2106.05(a)(x), in which "Examples that the courts have indicated may show an improvement in computer-functionality [include ... ] An improved user interface for electronic devices that displays an application summary of unlaunched applications, where the particular data in the summary is selectable by a user to launch the respective application."
Noted. However, similar limitations have been found to not be enough to make abstract claims statutory.
Thus, at least Applicant's Independent Claim 1, as amended, recites eligible subject matter at least because the improvements to the graphical user interface constitute "improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field," as set forth in MPEP 2106.05(a), which specifically describes the Core Wireless example in MPEP 2106.05(a)(I)(x). Thus, Applicant respectfully submits that the claims are directed to eligible subject matter.
For at least these reasons, Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejections of claims 1-3, 7, 9, 14, 15, 17, 24, 39, 66, 70-71, 73, 74, and 80-82 as allegedly directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Based on the above, the rejection is respectfully maintained but modified for the claim amendment.
Claim Interpretation
Applicant has argued regarding “container” that (from Remarks filed January 12, 2026):
“The financial plan container is specifically defined in the Specification and the Claims, including, just from the claim language that it is "at least partially based on a user interaction of a user with the computer," that it is "configured to receive and contain client data," that it includes a template of one or more variables "based on one or more of a type of the financial plan container and financial plan data, and wherein at least one variable of the template of variables is based on data inputted by another entity."” (Remarks filed January 12, 2026).
Therefore, a container contains client data that includes a template of variables.
From Applicant’s argument above…
“The financial plan container specifies "a custom client interface including one or more prompts defined by the financial plan container that is presented through the graphical user interface, and wherein each financial plan container comprises a narrative that includes one of an event, an occurrence, and a condition, and wherein each financial plan container defines a specification for the graphical user interface that is configured to reduce a complexity of queries to the user." (Amended Independent Claim 1).”
Therefore, a financial plan container specifies a client interface including prompts defined by the financial plan container and comprises a narrative and defines a specification for a graphical user interface.
Also, Fig. 10A teaches a financial plan container can generate at least one container that includes a template of one or more variables.
A container is therefore interpreted as computer software for financial planning that can store data (e.g., client data, narratives) and execute instructions (e.g., defines prompts, generates container).
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 1-3, 7, 9, 14, 15, 17, 24, 39, 66, 70, 71, 73, 74, and 80-82 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-3, 7, 9, 14, 15, 17, 24, 39, 66, 70, 71, 73, 74, and 80-82 are directed to a method, which is a statutory category of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified method Claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis.
Claim 1 recites the limitations of:
A computationally-implemented method, comprising:
generating, on a computer, at least one financial plan container, said generating at least partially based on a user interaction of a user with the computer, that includes a template of one or more variables, said financial plan container configured to receive and contain client data, and said template of one or more variables is based on one or more of a type of the financial plan container and financial plan data, and wherein at least one variable of the template of variables is based on data inputted by another entity;
facilitating presentation, through a graphical user interface, of the at least one financial plan container that is configured to receive the client data, wherein the at least one financial plan container specifies a custom client interface including one or more prompts defined by the financial plan container that is presented through the graphical user interface, and wherein each financial plan container comprises a narrative that includes one of an event, an occurrence, and a condition, and wherein each financial plan container defines a specification for the graphical user interface that is configured to reduce a complexity of queries to the user;
receiving the client data through the custom client interface specified by the at least one financial plan container and presented through the specified graphical user interface, into the at least one financial plan container by presenting one or more questions to the user that are based on the type of the financial plan container;
applying one or more projection factors to the at least one financial plan container that contains the client data, wherein said one or more projection factors are based on:
changes in client data of one or more further financial plan containers that are associated with one or more users and that have a different container timing than the at least one container,
and wherein a particular projection factor of the one or more projection factors is based on the selection of a particular economic segment that is based on the life data contained in the at least one financial plan container; and
incorporating the at least one financial plan container that contains the client data and to which the one or more projection factors have been applied, into a client financial plan that is presented to a user in the graphical user interface.
These above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. The claim recites elements, highlighted in bold above, which covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic practice (e.g., applying projection factors to the financial plan container that contains the client data) and managing personal behavior (e.g., applying projection factors to a financial plan container, incorporating client data into a client financial plan). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic practice and/or managing personal behavior, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Claim 1 therefore is abstract. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite: a computer (Claim 1). The computer hardware is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See Applicant’s specification, para. [00228] of using a general-purpose computer. Also, para. [00224] where those skilled in the art will recognize implementations may be easily changed. The financial plan container, template, and user interface, appear to be software to implement the abstract elements. The “container” in the disclosure can include a template of variables (para. [0014]), where the container is represents of various occurrences, events, conditions or other things that may have financial data associated with them (para. [0087]). For example, a live container may be an event such as purchase of a house and contain assets, goals, taxes, etc. (therefore a template of variables related to purchase of a house, assets, goals, taxes, etc.). A “container” also appears to be categories or grouping of similar things (such as job, home, vacation, baby) with client data (e.g. Fig. 2, ref. 210, 220, 230, and 240). A user interface (Fig. 2) may be filled out by customers for the different containers (e.g., a template for a job container may be filled out by a client). Summarizing “container” therefore, this appears to be a template with user interface (software) for entering categories of data (e.g., job data) for financial planning purposes, which is abstract. The “container defines a specification for the graphical user interface” is claimed at a high level of generality, is not used for anything. The graphical user interface is display software. The claims also recite “each financial plan container defines a specification for the graphical user interface that is configured to reduce a complexity of queries to the user” where similar claiming of an interface that facilitates a trader in processing information more quickly was shown to be insufficient (MPEP 2106.05(a) I viii, Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC). Also, this is recited at a high level of generality and there is no guarantee that complexity will be reduced. 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. Therefore Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they 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 apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Also, mere data gathering has been shown to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g) (3), such as performing clinical tests on individuals to obtain input for an equation, obtaining information about transactions to verify credit card transactions, consulting and updating an activity log). 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. Steps such as receiving are steps that are considered insignificant extra solution activity and mere instructions to apply the exception using general computer components (see MPEP 2106.05(d), II). Thus Claim 1 is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims 2, 3, 7, 9, 14, 15, 17, 24, 39, 66, 70, 71, 73, 74, and 80-82 further define the abstract idea that is present in independent Claims 1 and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and Mental Processes and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Claims 2, 3, and 7 are abstract as facilitating presentation of a financial plan. Claim 7, 14, 15, and 17 are abstract as generating a template to receive client data. Claim 24 generates a financial plan container, where the container is a life card. This is abstract as financial plan data. Claim 39 generates a generates a financial plan container that includes a template with variables, which is abstract as financial plan data. Claim 66 is providing a financial plan container to receive client data, itself abstract as receiving data for use in a financial plan. Claim 70 is applying models at a high level of generality to project a value of content of a financial plan container, itself abstract as relating to financial plan. Claims 72, 73 and 74 are similar to claim 70 and applying projection factors. Claims 80-82 are utilizing, acquiring, and modifying financial plan data and are abstract themselves as relating to a financial plan. Therefore, the claims 2, 3, 7, 9, 14, 15, 17, 24, 39, 66, 70, 71, 73, 74, and 80-82 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1-3, 7, 9, 14, 15, 17, 24, 39, 66, 70, 71, 73, 74, and 80-82 are not patent-eligible.
Examiner Request
The Applicant is requested to indicate where in the specification there is support for amendments to claims should Applicant amend. The purpose of this is to reduce potential 35 U.S.C. §112, 1st paragraph issues that can arise when claims are amended without support in the specification. The Examiner thanks the Applicant in advance
Prior Art
A prior art search was updated but does not result in a prior art rejection at this time.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH BARTLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5230. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7:30 - 4:00 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, SHAHID MERCHANT can be reached at (571) 270-1360. 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.
/KENNETH BARTLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684