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 .
Status of Claims
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 was filed in this application after a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, but before the filing of a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or the commencement of a civil action. 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examination under 37 CFR 1.114 and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the appeal has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114 and prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 5/28/2026 has been entered.
This non-final office action is in reply to the request for continued examination on 5/28/2026 based on the response after final filed 2/18/2025.
A Patent Board Decision affirming the previous rejections under 35 USC 101 and 35 USC 103 was issued 3/26/2026.
The rejections under 35 USC 112 were withdrawn in the Examiner’s Answer filed 7/22/2025.
Applicant’s amendment to Claims 1, 8, 17, and 18 have been received and are acknowledged.
Claims 1-18 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 USC § 101 Rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
A Patent Board Decision affirming the previous rejections under 35 USC 101 and 35 USC 103 was issued 3/26/2026.
With regard to the rejections under 35 USC 101, Applicant argues: (1) That the Office Action’s characterization of the “… present invention as a system (or method) "financial savings"… Although "savings" is …mentioned in the specification, in the context of the invention, "savings" are the monies transferred to an account and invested, and the prompts and other aspects of the invention are concerned with investment and adherence to a financial plan to achieve a goal….To place focus on this distinction the amendments set forth above emphasize that the invention is directed to modifying user's financial and/or investment behavior and the prompts effectuate the behavior modification…By developing a provider managed application, that integrates the user-defined goal with data collected from the provider managed investment application database, the provider of the simulation is able to notify users of the probability of achieving the unique, user-determined goal, based on investment behavior and to further reinforce discipline by sending prompts or notifications via SMS, email, within the app, etc. communicating information about adverse or positive changes in probability of success…each of the independent claims are not directed to a judicial exception at all, or at the very least include the "significantly more" required to reach the conclusion that eligible subject matter is recited, and/or set forth a technical solution to a technical problem to satisfy Step 2B….” (Applicant’s response, 7-8) ( 2) Applicant further references McRO and Example 39, to assert that the recited invention cannot be performed in the human mind stating “….the portion of the invention not capable of being readily performed in the human mind or using pen and paper is the vigilance required to maintain investing discipline, which is the function of the prompts required by all the independent claims….” (Applicant’s response, 9-11) Applicant additionally argues that amended Claims 1, 17 and 18 do not recite a judicial exception “because each includes the element of using prompts to modify the financial behavior of the user, which is not an abstract idea….” (Applicant’s response, 10) (3) Applicant also argues that the recited amended independent claims address the “…technical problem and technical solution” aspect of subject matter eligibility…” (Applicant’s response, 11) Applicant asserts that “…the technical problem is how to modify user behavior in relation to a computer-generated financial plan and the technical solution is to provide prompts generated by the system to engage the user and modify the behavior of the user. The nexus between the problem and solution is clear and unambiguous, the sole function of the prompts is to create the behavior modification…”(Applicant’s response, 11)
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As previously stated and affirmed by the PTAB , the claims are directed to an abstract idea. (See PTAB Decision 3/26/2026, pp 9-10
“We agree with the Examiner that the gamification, good investment habits, and financial behavior modification through prompts to evaluate an investment are elements of the abstract idea that organize the human activity of investors for advertising, marketing, and sales activities and behaviors.” ). Further as previously stated, the pending claims disclose tasks that can be performed by the human mind or with pen and paper. The 2019 Revised Guidance explains that “mental processes” include acts that people can perform in their minds or using pen and paper, even if the claim recites that a generic computer component performs the acts. See 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 n.14. For example, the claims disclose allowing a user to select a locality, a profession, and lifestyle choice, a selected number of years of run simulation, and a user’s personal savings goal in order to retrieve relevant financial data and presenting financial possibilities. These tasks may be performed by the human mind or with pen and paper. The recitation of the collection of user input is literally an action requires human mind based action. Further, as previously stated, no improvement to technology is recited;
As previously stated, providing ‘prompts’ or recommendations as to how to modify user behavior is (a) does not actually “modify user behavior” as asserted and (b) is also at most an improvement to an abstract idea not technology. Applicant’s own arguments that refer to the invention’s as “reinforce discipline by sending prompts” implies that the invention addresses the concept of user willpower by using technology – which is an improvement to the abstract idea. (Applicant’s arguments 1-3).
With regard to the reference of Example 39 and McRO, the recited invention does not address a technological problem. (See also PTAB decision, 26 Mar 2026, p22; “… “…Unlike the claims in McRO, claim 1 here does not improve computer
functionality or even software for modeling simulated scenarios to improve
financial planning. Cf Appeal Br. 28. It collects and selects data based on
user values and models a financial outcome based on the user inputs and the
financial data and displays the simulated scenario with a proposed financial
plan for the user to evaluate with further prompts to evaluate investments.
In contrast to the concrete, physical display of lip synchronization and facial
expressions of animated characters on screens in McRO, claim 1 here merely
processes and displays information….”) Also as previously stated instant recited claims are at best most similar to Example 46, ineligible claim 1 where the ‘data collected’ is for “monitoring health and activity” including an interface and a monitoring component which processes and displays data. Applicant’s own previous arguments refer to recited Claims as “employs” (i.e. using) the provided information “to alert the user and prompt the user to modify their behavior”. This is at most an improvement to the abstract idea (See also Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 198 USPQ 193 (1978). As such Applicant’s assertions are not persuasive for reasons stated in the rejection below. (Applicant’s arguments 1-3).
With regard to the rejections under 35 USC 103, Applicant reiterates the arguments of: (1) Grizack does not teach “sending prompts…. “communicating information about changes in a probability of success for the proposed financial plan”…” (2) Grizack does not disclose retrieving “real-time income and cost of living expenses.” (3) “The office action does not offer a rationale for combining the two reference asserted in the rejection.”. (Applicant’s response 12-14.)
Examiner respectfully disagrees as noted in the rejections previously and below. A rationale with motivation to combine references was clearly provided in the previous office action. (Applicant’s argument 3) With regard to Applicant’s arguments (1), Examiner notes that Applicant’s argument is directed to a feature not claimed. The invention does not “modify the user’s behavior” it merely “sends prompts” which using broadest reasonable interpretation includes suggestions, recommendations etc. With regard to Applicant’s argument (2), Applicant’s arguments moot in view of the rejection below. Applicant’s arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the recited claims.
Further, as previously noted it is noted that using broadest reasonable interpretation that many of the previously claimed and rejected elements are potentially optional. In the interest of compact prosecution, Examiner maintains the rejections under 35 USC 103. (See also PTAB decision dated 3/26/2026).
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 2, 8, 14, and 15 recite the limitation " a saving and investment performance simulation system " in Claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in these claims.
Claims 3-7, 9-13 and 16 are rejected based on their dependency on a rejected dependent claim.
Claim Interpretation
As a general matter, the grammar and intended meaning of terms used in a claim will dictate whether the language limits the claim scope. Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. The following are examples of language that may raise a question as to the limiting effect of the language in a claim:
(A) statements of intended use or field of use,
(B) “adapted to” or “adapted for” clauses,
(C) “wherein” clauses, or
(D) “whereby” clauses.
This list of examples is not intended to be exhaustive. See also MPEP § 2111.04
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, (1) it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, (2a) it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so (2b), it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices; certain methods of organizing human activities; an idea itself; and mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. ____ (2014).
The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. In the instant case, the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
(1) In the instant case, the claims are directed towards a method, and the system for simulating financial savings for a user. In the instant case, Claims 17 and 18 are directed to a process. Claims 1-16 are directed to a system.
(2a) Prong 1: Simulating financial savings is categorized in/akin to the abstract idea subject matter grouping of: methods of organizing human activity and mental processes) [organizing human activity (commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)]. As such, the claims include an abstract idea.
The specific limitations of the invention are (a) identified to encompass the abstract idea include:
Claim 1
A investment performance teaching…, comprising:
a … ….; and
a … and having….…. for … data associated with financial performance of a simulated user account;
….,including:
……. to manually input non-zero/non-null user values for one or more of:
a locality;
a profession;
a lifestyle choice;
a selected number of years of run simulation; and
a user's personal savings goal,
…retrieves financial data from a third party …, wherein the selection of data that are retrieved is based on the user values , and
……..whereby a simulated scenario modeling a financial outcome based on the user inputs and the financial data is presented and displayed; , and
… …whereby a proposed financial plan for the user to evaluate based on historical rates of return is presented and displayed, and thereafter sending prompts about an investment to the … to be evaluated by the user thereby communicating information about changes in a probability of success of an investment determined by the system for the proposed financial plan in order to modify the user's investment behavior.
17. A method for simulating investment by a user, comprising the steps of:
(a) providing …. for …. data associated with financial performance of a user account and a…., and ….
(b) the user entering non-zero/non-null value for of the following ….: a locality; a profession; a lifestyle choice; a selected number of years of run simulation; and a user's personal savings goal;
(c) retrieving real time financial data …. wherein the selection of data that are retrieved is based on the user input;
(d) … … a simulated scenario on the device that models a financial outcome based on the user inputs and the financial data;
(e) generating and…a proposed financial plan for the user to evaluate based on historical rates of return, and (f) thereafter sending prompts …. communicating information about changes in a probability of success for the proposed financial plan to modify the investment behavior of the user.
18. A …. method for providing an investment simulation for a user, comprising the steps of:
…a non-zero user input of at least the following characteristics:
a locality;
a profession;
a lifestyle choice;
a selected number of years of run simulation; and
a user's personal savings goal;
…. the user input to a data aggregator application programming interface;
…third party financial data, wherein the selection of data that are retrieved is based on the user input in the data aggregator application programming interface;
analyzing the collected third party data and the user input to determine a user financial behavior based upon the characteristics;
comparing the user financial behavior to a set of other users’ financial behaviors;
determining recommendations to be implemented by the user to modify a behavior, wherein the recommendations include changes to user inputs to be taken by the user in order to reduce risk associated with the financial behavior; and
… the recommendation … via prompts to the user.
As stated above, this abstract idea falls into the (b) subject matter grouping of: (methods of organizing human activity and mental processes) .
Prong 2: When considered individually and in combination, the instant claims are do not integrate the exception into a practical application because the steps of allow…manual(ly) input/ entering …,… … retrieve……, generate…analyzing… comparing… determining… do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception (i.e. the abstract idea).
The instant recited claims including additional elements (i.e. receiving … sending… collecting/storing/transmitting…, present and display.., sending. …display…causing .. to be transmitted…. ) do not improve the functioning of the computer or improve another technology or technical field nor do they recite meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The limitations merely recite: merely recite: “apply it” (or an equivalent) or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer a as tool to perform an abstract idea or merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception or merely uses generic computing elements to perform well known, routine, and conventional functions or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (: See MPEP 2106.05 (d), (f) and (g))
(2b) In the instant case, Claims 17 and 18 are directed to a process. Claims 1-16 are directed to a system.
Additionally, the claims (independent and dependent) do not include additional elements that individually or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception of abstract idea (i.e. provide an inventive concept). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of: (general user interface, computer readable storage device, database, modules, computer, central processing unit, input device, programmatic element, application database, database server housing a data aggregator application programming interface, device, database ) merely uses a computer a as tool to perform an abstract idea or merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception or merely uses generic computing elements to perform well known, routine, and conventional functions. (See MPEP 2106.05 (d), (f) and (g)) (Specification, [58-59] hardware infrastructure…computing device, API [60-63] system, processor Fig 10 any type of computer processor; [64] API)
The dependent claims have also been examined and do not correct the deficiencies of the independent claims.
It is noted that claim (2-16) introduce the additional elements which further define various modules of the savings simulation system relating to various aspects/elements of the simulator and simulation This element is not a practical application of the judicial exception because the limitations merely recite: “apply it” (or an equivalent) or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer a as tool to perform an abstract idea or merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception or merely uses generic computing elements to perform well known, routine, and conventional functions or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05 (d), (f) and (g)) Further these limitations taken alone or in combination with the abstract do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea alone because the elements amount to mere use of a computer a as tool to perform an abstract idea or merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception or merely uses generic computing elements to perform well known, routine, and conventional functions. (See MPEP 2106.05 (d), (f) and (g)) (Specification, [58-59] hardware infrastructure…computing device, API [60-63] system, processor Fig 10 any type of computer processor; [64] API)
Therefore, claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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, 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grizack et al. (US 2006/0074788 A1) hereinafter Grizack,
Claim 1
A investment performance teaching system, comprising:
a single general user interface; and a computer connected to the single general user interface and having: a computer readable storage device having a database module for collecting, storing, and transmitting data associated with financial performance of a simulated user account; a central processing unit running a plurality of core modules, including (see at least Grizack [0014] [0017] [0018] [0063]-[0066] [0072] [0075]-[0077]. Grizack discloses interactively providing financial advice to an individual via a computer system includes receiving current information of the advisee, determining a future financial obligation of the advisee, determining a rate of return on investment that is required in order for the advisee to meet the future financial obligation, and providing a recommended asset allocation. Grizack discloses a financial planning system comprises a user interface to display information to the advisee, a database for collecting and storing information, a central processing unit.).
a device to manually input non-zero/non-null values for:
a locality; a profession; a lifestyle choice; a selected number of years of run simulation; and a user's personal savings goal; (see at least Grizack Figs. 5-35, current situation input, future goals, tailor plan…[0014] [0081] [0108] [0072] [0089]-[0090] [0096] [0100] [00104] [0105] [0114] [0108] [0064-66][0145] [0146] [0150] [0173] [0174] [0177] [0180]. Grizack discloses the automated financial system including a keyboard which may collect information about the user through the use of one or more different modules, such as, geographic location, occupation, education level, goals, assets and debts, etc.).
wherein the computer retrieves financial data from a third party database using an application database server housing a data aggregator application programming interface, wherein the selection of data that are retrieved is based on the user values (see at least Grizack [0014] [0072]. Grizack discloses the financial advising system can draw information from third party sources such as: actuarial data; historical price data on securities from sources such as Morningstar; financial information of the advisee, such as banking and portfolio information maintained in other financial institution systems; market information, such as the days closing numbers for various market indices as well as individual stock securities pricing information; and the goals and characteristics of mutual funds.).
whereby a simulated scenario modeling a financial outcome based on the user inputs and the financial data is presented and displayed; and (see at least Grizack Fig. 5-34,[0014] [0064] [0114]-[0116] [0150] [01532] [0153] [0183]. Grizack discloses each user will be presented with a life financial goal timeline. The timeline on the GUI will display adjustments of various factors to allow a user to reach financial goals represented by the user’s current intended future life events. The simulation may be changed based on user’s changing inputs.).
whereby a proposed financial plan for the user to evaluate based on historical rates of return is presented and displayed, and… the system sends prompts about an investment to be evaluated by the user thereby communicating information about changes in a probability of success of an investment determined by the system for the proposed financial plan in order to modify the user's investment behavior (see at least Grizack Fig. 5-35, Specifically Fig. 29, Tailor plan, update success %, various sliders …wherein sliders reads on prompts …; Fig. 30-34 goal blueprint [0014] [0064] [0014] [0115] [0160] [0072] [0116][0173] [0175] [173-182]. Grizack discloses determining a rate of return on investment that is required in order for the individual to meet the future financial obligation based on the individual's current financial situation; and then providing to the individual a recommended asset allocation and an indication of the probability that the future financial obligation will be met based on the individual's current financial situation and the recommended asset allocation.).
Grizack discloses the limitations shown above.
Further, though Grizack does not directly disclose “thereafter”, Grizack teaches/suggests tailoring various inputs to change the scenario and ‘update success %.’ (see at least Grizack Fig. 5-35, Specifically Fig. 29, Tailor plan, update success %, various sliders …wherein sliders reads on prompts …[0047] … FIG. 29 illustrates an alternative interactive financial planning advisor interface for displaying a probability of meeting current goals and for tailoring factors influencing such probability….[128] …if a user is curious regarding the possible effect that a change in the information regarding a life event identified …the user may revise the information in any or all of the decision trees… the impact on the probability of attaining the goals…)
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would find it obvious to repeat and update the financial scenarios including “thereafter.” One would be motivated to do update and revise the scenarios out of curiosity. (Grizack, [128])
Claim 17
17. A method for simulating investment by a user, comprising the steps of:
(a) providing a computer with single general user interface that includes a computer readable storage device having a database module for collecting, storing, and linking data associated with financial performance of a user account and a central processing unit connected to the single general user interface and the computer readable storage device, and running a plurality of core modules, and a user input device; (see at least Grizack [0014] [0017] [0018] [0063]-[0066] [0072] [0075]-[0077]. Grizack discloses interactively providing financial advice to an individual via a computer system includes receiving current information of the advisee, determining a future financial obligation of the advisee, determining a rate of return on investment that is required in order for the advisee to meet the future financial obligation, and providing a recommended asset allocation. Grizack discloses a financial planning system comprises a user interface to display information to the advisee, a database for collecting and storing information, a central processing unit.).
(b) the user entering a non-zero/null value for the following via the input device: a locality; a profession; a lifestyle choice; a selected number of years of run simulation; and a user's personal savings goal; (see at least Grizack [0014] [0081] [0108] [0072] [0089]-[0090] [0096] [0100] [00104] [0105] [0114] [0108] [0064] [0145] [0146] [0150] [0173] [0174] [0177] [0180]. Grizack discloses the automated financial system may collect information about the user through the use of one or more different modules, such as, geographic location, occupation, education level, goals, assets and debts, etc.).
(c) retrieving [real-time] financial data from a third party database using an application database server housing a data aggregator application programming interface, wherein the selection of data that are retrieved is based on the user input; (see at least Grizack Fig. 5-35, [0014] [0072]. Grizack discloses the financial advising system can draw information from third party sources such as: actuarial data; historical price data on securities from sources such as Morningstar; financial information of the advisee, such as banking and portfolio information maintained in other financial institution systems; market information, such as the days closing numbers for various market indices as well as individual stock securities pricing information; and the goals and characteristics of mutual funds.).
(d) presenting and displaying a simulated scenario on the device that models a financial outcome based on the user inputs and the financial data; and (see at least Grizack [0014] [0064] [0114]-[0116] [0150] [01532] [0153] [0183]. Grizack discloses each user will be presented with a life financial goal timeline. The timeline on the GUI will display adjustments of various factors to allow a user to reach financial goals represented by the user’s current intended future life events. The simulation may be changed based on user’s changing inputs.).
(e) generating and displaying a proposed financial plan for the user to evaluate based on historical rates of return,; and (f) thereafter sending prompts to the device communicating information about changes in a probability of success for the proposed financial plan to modify the investment behavior of the user. (see at least Grizack Fig. 5-35, Specifically Fig. 29, Tailor plan, update success %, various sliders …wherein sliders reads on prompts …; Fig. 30-34 goal blueprint [0014] [0064] [0014] [0115] [0160] [0072] [0116][0173] [0175]. Grizack discloses determining a rate of return on investment that is required in order for the individual to meet the future financial obligation based on the individual's current financial situation; and then providing to the individual a recommended asset allocation and an indication of the probability that the future financial obligation will be met based on the individual's current financial situation and the recommended asset allocation.).
Further, though Grizack does not directly disclose “real-time”, Grizack teaches/suggests receiving various current inputs and data which allow for the change the scenario and ‘update success %.’ (see at least Grizack [87-129] current financial situation… currently intended future life events)
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would find it obvious to repeat and update the financial scenarios including “real-time.” One would be motivated to do update and revise the scenarios out of curiosity. (Grizack, [128])
18. A computer-implemented method for providing an investment simulation for a user, comprising the steps of:
receiving a non-zero user input of at least the following characteristics:
a locality; a profession; a lifestyle choice; a selected number of years of run simulation; and a user's personal savings goal; (see at least Grizack Figs. 5-35, current situation input, future goals, tailor plan…[0014] [0081] [0108] [0072] [0089]-[0090] [0096] [0100] [00104] [0105] [0114] [0108] [0064-66][0145] [0146] [0150] [0173] [0174] [0177] [0180]. Grizack discloses the automated financial system including a keyboard which may collect information about the user through the use of one or more different modules, such as, geographic location, occupation, education level, goals, assets and debts, etc.).
sending the user input to a data aggregator application programming interface; (see at least Grizack Fig. 2[0014] [0072] data server stores input data…)
collecting and retrieving third party financial data, wherein the selection of data that are retrieved is based on the user input in the data aggregator application programming interface; (see at least Grizack Fig. 2 [0014] [0072][104] . Grizack discloses the financial advising system can draw information from third party sources such as: actuarial data; historical price data on securities from sources such as Morningstar; financial information of the advisee, such as banking and portfolio information maintained in other financial institution systems; market information, such as the days closing numbers for various market indices as well as individual stock securities pricing information; and the goals and characteristics of mutual funds.).
analyzing the collected third party data and the user input to determine a user financial behavior based upon the characteristics; (see at least Grizack Fig. 2[0014] [0072] data server stores input data…rules and algorithms for path selection)
[comparing] the user financial behavior to a set of other users’ financial behaviors; (see at least Grizack see for example Fig. 5-35, Specifically Fig. 29, Tailor plan, update success %, various sliders …wherein sliders reads on prompts … [47-50] Fig. 11-13, Fig. 29-31; probability of meeting current goals… Goal Blueprint…recommended reallocations… statistical analysis goal achievement probability based on historical rate of return.. wherein the historical rate of return suggests other users’ financial behaviors… FIG. 29 illustrates an alternative interactive financial planning advisor interface for displaying a probability of meeting current goals and for tailoring factors influencing such probability… [74] current financial situation… adjusting various factors to reach a user’s financial goal represented by the user’s currently intended future life events…[87-105] current financial situation… useful information collected from other sources…. Recommending possible savings actions to be taken by the user…[112-129] receiving future life data….[128] …if a user is curious regarding the possible effect that a change in the information regarding a life event identified …the user may revise the information in any or all of the decision trees… the impact on the probability of attaining the goals… )
determining recommendations to be implemented by the user to modify a financial behavior, wherein the recommendations include changes to user inputs to be taken by the user in order to reduce risk associated with the behavior; and causing the recommendation to be transmitted via prompts to the user. (see at least Grizack Fig. 5-35, Specifically Fig. 29, Tailor plan, update success %, various sliders …wherein sliders reads on prompts …; Fig. 30-34 goal blueprint [0014] [0064] [0014] [87-105] [0115] [0160] [0072] [0116][0173] [0175] [173-182]. Grizack discloses determining a rate of return on investment that is required in order for the individual to meet the future financial obligation based on the individual's current financial situation; and then providing to the individual a recommended asset allocation and an indication of the probability that the future financial obligation will be met based on the individual's current financial situation and the recommended asset allocation.).
Grizack discloses the limitations shown above. Further, though Grizack does not directly disclose “comparing”, Grizack teaches/suggests tailoring various inputs to change the scenario and ‘update success %’ wherein the tailoring and changing is a comparing. (see at least Grizack Fig. 5-35, Specifically Fig. 29, Tailor plan, update success %, various sliders …wherein sliders reads on prompts …[0047] … FIG. 29 illustrates an alternative interactive financial planning advisor interface for displaying a probability of meeting current goals and for tailoring factors influencing such probability….[128] …if a user is curious regarding the possible effect that a change in the information regarding a life event identified …the user may revise the information in any or all of the decision trees… the impact on the probability of attaining the goals…)
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would find it obvious to “comparing the user financial behavior to a set of behaviors ….” One would be motivated to do update and revise the scenarios out of curiosity. (Grizack, [128])
Claim 2
Grizack discloses the limitations shown above. Further, Grizack discloses:
The savings and investment performance simulation system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of core modules further generate a personal savings calculator to provide an amount to invest for each year in retirement savings to meet the user's personal savings goal. (see at least Grizack [0014] [0064] [0072] [0114] [0089]-[0090] [0100] [0104] [0105] [0108] [0008] [0043] [0120] [0133] [0141] [0146] [0147] [0155]. Grizack discloses generating a savings calculator to show the user if he will be able to achieve many of his financial goals at retirement, or if he may need to defer retirement or add more to retirement.).
Claim 3
Grizack discloses the limitations shown above. Further, Grizack discloses:
The savings and investment performance simulation system of claim 2, wherein the plurality of core modules includes a landing screen module to provide the user options to build the proposed financial plan. (see at least Grizack Figs. 5, 7, 9, 20; [0014] [0074] [0076] [0092] [0125] [0172] [0173]. Grizack discloses the interactive financial planning advisor interface allows users to input information regarding current information, future goals, tailor plan, etc.).
Claim 4
Grizack discloses the limitations shown above. Further, Grizack discloses:
The savings and investment performance simulation system of claim 3, wherein the plurality of core modules further includes a my profile module permitting the user to enter information about a user's current age, a location, and a number of years the user wishes to save to meet the user's personal savings goal. (see at least Grizack [0014] [0081]-[0083] [0064] [0072] [0114] [0089]-[0090] [0100] [0104] [0105] [0108] [0008] [0043] [0120] [0133] [0141] [0146] [0147] [0155]. Grizack discloses the user may enter his age, geographic location, and a number of years until retirement/number of years to run the simulation.).
Claim 5
Grizack discloses the limitations shown above. Further, Grizack discloses:
The savings and investment performance simulation system of claim 4, wherein the my profile module permits the user to enter information regarding status and amount of student loans. (see at least Grizack [0014] [0106] [0044] [0090] [0176]. Grizack discloses the user is asked to provide the value of outstanding student loans).
Claim 6
Grizack discloses he limitations shown above. Marino specifically discloses permitting a user to select a job title:
The savings and investment performance simulation system of claim 4, wherein the plurality of core modules further includes a career module permitting the user to select a job title of the profession. (see at least [0006] [0019] [0020] [0023] [0032] [0033] [0072] [0073]. Marino discloses a user selects a future career.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the automated financial system of Grizack to incorporate the teachings of Marino and specifically disclose permitting a user to select a job title because doing so would allow a user to see financial management and reinforce monetary decisions that have a high likelihood of financial stability (see at least Marino [0003] [0023] [0072] [0020] [0006]).
Claim 7
Grizack discloses the limitations shown above. Marino specifically discloses permitting a user to select a level of experience for various career choices:
The savings and investment performance simulation system of claim 4, wherein the career module further permits the user to select a level of experience for the job title of the profession. (see at least [0006] [0019] [0020] [0023] [0032] [0033] [0072] [0073]. Marino discloses the system allows a user to select from a plethora of careers with various experience levels and titles.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the automated financial system of Grizack to incorporate the teachings of Marino and specifically disclose permitting a user to select a level of experience for various career choices because doing so would allow a user to see financial management and reinforce monetary decisions that have a high likelihood of financial stability (see at least Marino [0003] [0023] [0072] [0020] [0006]).
Claim 8
Grizack discloses the limitations shown above. Further, Grizack discloses:
The savings and investment performance simulation system of claim 1 7, wherein the plurality of core modules further includes an investment module permitting the user to enter inputs directed to expected saving and investments during a number of the selected years of simulation to define the user's personal savings goal. (see at least Grizack [0014] [0064] [0072] [0114] [0089]-[0090] [0100] [0104] [0105] [0108] [0008] [0043] [0120] [0133] [0141] [0146] [0147] [0155] . Grizack discloses the user inputs retirement goals, retirement and savings accounts, and number of years until retirement in order to allow the financial system to run and determine if the user can take retirement at goal time, needs to defer retirement, and/or needs to add more to his savings and retirement accounts.).
Claim 9
Grizack discloses the limitations shown above. Further, Grizack discloses:
The savings and investment performance simulation system of claim 8, wherein the plurality of core modules further includes a my plan summary module that generates a report directed to a statistical likelihood of achieving the user's personal savings goal. (see at least Grizack Fig. 31, Fig. 30. Figs. 13-19 [0183] [0014] [0152]-[0154]. Grizack discloses a "Goal Achievement Probability Graph" is available for display to the user. The graph visually represents the statistical output of a financial model simulation that is used to generate a probability like the probability represented in the interface. Moreover, Grizack discloses that the advisee will be shown that for example, there is a 92.3% probability of a Dream Achievement without Goal #6 and an 87% probability of Dream Achievement with Goal #6.).
Claim 10
Grizack discloses the limitations shown above. Further, Grizack discloses:
The savings and investment performance simulation system of claim 8, wherein the my plan summary module further generates a further report establishing a confidence interval. (see at least Grizack Fig. 31, Fig. 30. Figs. 13-19 [0183] [0014] [0152]-[0154]. Grizack discloses an “Acceptable” range of probability of reaching a Dream Achievement, a “Risky” range of probability, and an “Unacceptable” range of probability.).
Claim 11
Grizack discloses the limitations shown above. Further, Grizack discloses:
The savings and investment performance simulation system of claim 8, wherein the locality is a geographical region. (see at least Grizack [0014] [0081] Grizack discloses the automated financial system may collect information about the user through the use of one or more different modules, such as, geographic location.).
Claim 12
Grizack discloses the limitations shown above. Further, Grizack discloses:
The savings and investment performance simulation system of claim 11, wherein the lifestyle choice is directed to spending nature of the user. (see at least Grizack [0014] [0064] [0108] [0081] [0108] [0072] [0089]-[0090] [0096] [0100] [00104] [0105] [0114] [0108] [0081] [0043] [0120] 0183] [0152]-[0154] [0145] [0146] [0150] [0173] [0174] [0177] [0180]. Grizack discloses the user inputs his assets, debts, dreams goals, and savings into the Financial Assistant System. The user adds dreams for college, how many years college will take, and the amount of the college degree. The user adds dream houses and the cost of that house. The user adds other dreams, such as wishes to purchase a boat, RV, and/or second home one day. The user inputs his savings accounts, etc.).
Claim 13
Grizack discloses the limitations shown above.
Grizack further discloses:
The savings and investment performance simulation system of claim 8, wherein the relevant financial data is retrieved from governmental agencies. (see at least Grizack, [108] from sources such as… Social Security payments… worker’s compensation benefits … )
The Examiner notes that these limitations are not functionally involved in the steps of the recited method. Therefore these limitations are deemed to be nonfunctional descriptive material. The steps of the method/system would be performed the same regardless of the source of the information. The differences between the content of the Applicant’s invention and the prior art are merely subjective. Thus this nonfunctional descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability, see In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994) also see MPEP 2106.
Claim 14
Grizack discloses the limitations shown above. Marino specifically discloses the financial plan is dependent on the career, lifestyle choices, and location:
The savings and investment performance simulation system of claim 1, wherein the proposed financial plan is dependent on the income data of a selected profession and cost data of living expenses for a selected geographical area from the user input. (see at least [0006] [0019] [0020] [0023] [0032] [0033] [0072] [0073] table 16; Table 21. Marino discloses retrieving information regarding careers and lifestyle choices from local resources in the area that provide various career, college, and lifestyle services.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the automated financial system of Grizack to incorporate the teachings of Marino and specifically disclose the financial plan is dependent on the career, lifestyle choices, and location because doing so would allow a user to see financial management and reinforce monetary decisions that have a high likelihood of financial stability (see at least Marino [0003] [0023] [0072] [0020] [0006]).
Claim 15
Grizack discloses the limitations shown above. Further, Grizack discloses:
The savings and investment performance simulation system of claim 1, wherein the proposed financial plan is a budget plan that is specific to the user input of an estimated recurring amount of monthly contribution towards the user's personal savings goal. (see at least Grizack [0014] [0064] [0072] [0114] [0089]-[0090] [0100] [0104] [0105] [0108] [0008] [0043] [0120] [0133] [0141] [0146] [0147] [0155] . Grizack discloses the user inputs retirement goals, retirement and savings accounts, and number of years until retirement in order to allow the financial system to run and determine if the user can take retirement at goal time, needs to defer retirement, and/or needs to add more to his savings and retirement accounts.).
Claim 16
Grizack discloses the limitations shown above. Further, Grizack discloses:
The savings and investment performance simulation system of claim 15, wherein the proposed financial plan generates a report indicating a likelihood of success of achieving the user's personal savings goal based on historical market return data for a selected investment vehicle. (see at least Grizack Figs. [0014] [0064] [0072] [0074] [0114] [0089]-[0090] [0100] [0104] [0105] [0108] [0008] [0043] [0120] [0133] [0141] [0146] [0147] [0155] Fig. 31, Fig. 30. Figs. 13-19 [0183] [0014] [0152]-[0154]. Grizack discloses displaying a timeline to show the user at what age he hopes to achieve goals and what he needs to do financially to achieve those dream goals. Grizack discloses a "Goal Achievement Probability Graph" is available for display to the user. The graph visually represents the statistical output of a financial model simulation that is used to generate a probability like the probability represented in the interface. Moreover, Grizack discloses that the advisee will be shown that for example, there is a 92.3% probability of a Dream Achievement without Goal #6 and an 87% probability of Dream Achievement with Goal #6.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHA PUTTAIA H whose telephone number is (571)270-1352. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am to 5:30 pm.
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, Abhishek Vyas can be reached on 571-272-6771. 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.
/ASHA PUTTAIA H/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691
Prosecution Insights