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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/30/2026 has been entered.
The following is a non-final office action in response to the request for continued examination of 04/30/2026.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-7 and 9-22, as originally filed 04/30/2026, are pending and have been examined on the merits (claim 1 being independent) and claim 1 has been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed 04/30/2026 have been fully considered.
The Examiner respectfully rescinds the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection in view of the amendments and arguments on pages 27-35 in Applicant’s remarks and therefore, no prior art rejection can be made on the claims 1-7 and 9-22.
Applicants assert that the pending claims fully comply with the requirement of 35 U.S.C. 101. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s argument and amendments have been considered and are not persuasive. The rejections under 35 USC 101 have been maintained and clarified in view of the USPTO MPEP 2106.
Applicant’s arguments (see Applicant’s remarks, pages 9-26)
(1) “The claims are subject-matter eligible because they do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A- Prong One.” (see page 10)
Applicant’s arguments that “Applicant respectfully submits that the claims, at least as amended do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong One. Applicant respectfully submits that the claims include limitations that do not amount to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. See e.g., MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(11).” (see page 10), are not found persuasive.
In response (1): Under Step 2 A, Prong 1 of the 2019 Revised § 101 Guidance, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception such as a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea (See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355) by identifying the specific limitation(s) in the claim that recites abstract idea(s); and then determine whether the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the MPEP 2106.04. The cited limitations as drafted are systems and methods that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a method of organizing human activity, but for the recitation of the generic computer components. Further, none of the limitations recite technological implementation details for any of the steps but, instead, only recite broad functional language being performed by the generic use of a computing device. Providing a financial concierge service to an individual based on the received financial data associated with a user is a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in commerce systems. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a fundamental economic principle or practice but for the general linking to a technological environment, then it falls within the organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
(2) Applicant’s arguments that “Both the claim in Example 37 and amended independent claim 1 are directed to causing a computing system to automatically generate and present disparate data and useful indicators to a user via a graphical user interface. Both claims may utilize various numerical data, such as the "amount of use of each icon," and the goal, financial, and challenge information associated with the user” (see page 14), are not found persuasive.
In response (2): With respect to Example 37, the claims of Example 37 were found to be eligible because the additional elements recite a specific manner of automatically displaying icons to the user based on usage which provides a specific improvement over prior systems, resulting in an improved user interface for electronic devices. Unlike Example 37, the additional elements of the instant application (e.g., a user device, a network, software, a computing device, a graphical user interface (GUI), and one or more processors) 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 use generic computer components as applying it with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
(3) “The claims are subject-matter eligible because they are not directed to an abstract idea under step 2A - Prong Two.” (see page 15)
Applicant’s arguments that “When considered as a whole and in an ordered combination, the recited claim limitations, including any alleged abstract idea and additional elements, provide for substantial improvements in technology of and technical field of generating and presenting goal-oriented financial advice to novice users, especially with respect to debt repayment and integrated financial management in real-time.” (see page 16), are not found persuasive.
In response (3): It is determined whether the claim is directed to the abstract concept itself or whether it is instead directed to some technological implementation or application of, or improvement to, this concept, i.e., integrated into a practical application. See, e.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 223, discussing Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981 ). The mere introduction of a computer or generic computer technology into the claims need not alter the analysis. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223-24. "[T]he relevant question is whether the claims here do more than simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer." Alice, 573 U.S. at 225. In the present case, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application by claiming an improvement to the functioning of the computer or to any other technology or technical field. Further, the claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application by applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way. In particular the claim limits of “a user device via a network”, “software executed by a computing device”, “by the one or more processors”, and “a graphical user interface (GUI)” are claimed and described at a high level of generality and are functions any general purpose computer performs such that it amount no more than mere instruction to apply the exception to a particular technological environment. Further, none of the limitations recite technological implementation details for any of the steps but, instead, only recite broad functional language being performed by the generic use of a computing device and a network. The claim limits also recite the use of a user device, a network, software, a computing device, a graphical user interface (GUI), and one or more data processors as additional elements. However, the use of these additionally elements, described at a high level of generality, perform generic computer functions such that it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaning limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed toward an abstract idea. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
(4) “The claims are subject-matter eligible because they are directed to an inventive concept under Step 2B.” (see page 25)
Applicant’s arguments that “Even if the Office Action suggests that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, to which Applicant does not acquiesce, Applicant submits that the claims are nevertheless subject-matter eligible because they amount to significantly more than any alleged abstract idea (i.e., they recite an inventive concept).” (see page 25), are not found persuasive.
In response (4): The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exactly using generic computer component. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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 1-7 and 9-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter without significantly more.
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.
Step (1): In the instant case, the claims are directed towards to a method for providing a financial concierge service to an individual based on the received financial data associated with a user which contains the steps of receiving, importing, updating, determining, allocating, and facilitating. The claim recites a series of steps and, therefore, is a process. The claims do fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 1 is direct to a method, i.e. machines programmed to carrying out process steps, Step 1-yes.
Step (2A) Prong 1: A method for providing a financial concierge service to an individual based on the received financial data associated with a user is akin to the abstract idea subject matter grouping of: Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity as fundamental economic principles or practices and commercial or legal interactions. As such, the claims include an abstract idea.
The specific limitations of the invention (e.g., the amended claim 1) are identified to encompass the abstract idea include: { receiving financial data in a digital file associated with a user …; automatically importing, ….the financial data from the received digital file; determining, ….. a state of personal finance of the user based at least in part on the received financial data, wherein the financial data includes debt information associated with a plurality of debts, and wherein determining the state of personal finance includes calculating a financial health score based on a plurality of weightings associated with a plurality of financial health indicators associated with the user, each financial health indicator having a corresponding one of the plurality of weightings; facilitating presentation, … of the state of personal finance in association with the updated budget information …. wherein the GUI presents a dashboard including a visualization of the updated budget information, a visualization depicting total debt of the user over a plurality of time periods, and a visualization of the financial health score; receiving, ….., goal information associated with the user, the goal information indicative of one or more financial goals of the user; receiving, by the one or more processors, challenge information associated with the user, the challenge information indicative of one or more financial challenges of the user during a first time interval; determining progress, ….., of the one or more financial goals based at least in part on the state of personal finance, at least in part on the financial health score, and at least in part on the challenge information; determining, ….., a total amount of funds available for extra periodic payments based on the financial data for paying the plurality of debts; allocating, ….., the total amount of funds available for the extra periodic payments to the plurality of debts based on the received goal information and the received challenge information, wherein allocating the total amount of funds available for the extra periodic payments includes: automatically determining a first extra payment amount associated with a first debt of the plurality of debts based at least in part on the received goal information and the received challenge information, the first extra payment amount being less than the total amount of funds available for the extra periodic payments; allocating, from the total amount of funds available for the extra periodic payments, the first extra payment amount to the first debt; allocating, to a second debt of the plurality of debts, at least a portion of a remainder of the total amount of funds available for the extra periodic payments after allocating the first extra payment amount; facilitating presentation of, ….., the first extra payment amount in association with the first debt and the at least the portion of the remainder of the total amount of funds available for the extra periodic payments in association with the second debt; facilitating presentation of, ….., a notification based at least in part on the progress of the one or more financial goals ….. including the paying of the plurality of debts.}
As stated above, this abstract idea falls into the subject matter grouping of: Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity as fundamental economic principles or practices and commercial or legal interactions as receiving financial data, determining financial goals, and presenting the progress of one or more financial goals.
Step (2A) Prong 2: The instant claims do not integrate the exception into a practical application because additional elements of “a user device via a network”, “software executed by a computing device”, “by one or more processors”, and “via a graphical user interface (GUI) generated by the user device” amount to simply applying the abstract idea to a computer component (e.g. “apply it”) 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. generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use - see MPEP 2106.05(h) or apply it with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The instant recited claims including additional elements (i.e. a user device, a network, software, a computing device, a graphical user interface (GUI), and one or more processors) 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 use a generic computing technology (Specification paragraphs [0041-0042]: a financial tool 200, a number of modules, GUI, a user device, computing devices, control module 220, output device, component of a GUI) as generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use - see MPEP 2106.05(h) or apply it with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea
Step (2B): The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements (Claims: e.g., a user device, a network, software, a computing device, a graphical user interface (GUI), and one or more processors) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exactly using generic computer component. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea over a computer including a graphical user interface (GUI).
The computer is merely a platform on which the abstract idea is implemented. Simply executing an abstract concept on a computer does not render a computer “specialized,” nor does it transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent-eligible one. See Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 687 F.3d 1266, 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2012). There are no improvements to another technology or technical field, no improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing or any other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment as a result of performing the claimed method. Also, the addition of merely novel or non-routine components to the claimed idea does not necessarily turn an abstraction into something concrete (See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, _ F.3d_, 2014 WL 5904902, (Fed. Cir. Nov. 14, 2014). Hence, the claims do not recite significantly more than an abstract idea. In conclusion, merely “linking/applying” the exception using generic computer components does not constitute ‘significantly more’ than the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05 (f)(h)). Therefore, claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent claims 2-7 and 9-22 when analyzed as a whole and in an ordered combination are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea, as detailed below. The additional recited limitations in the dependent claims only refine the abstract idea.
For instance, in claim 2, the step of “… wherein the financial data includes i) income information; ii) expense information; iii) debt information; iv) asset information; v) a credit score; or…” (i.e., financial data such as income or asset), in claim 3, the step of “… wherein the state of personal finance includes i) a credit score ratio indicating a ratio of a user's credit score to a maximum credit score; ii) an emergency fund ratio indicating a ratio of liquid savings to essential expenses;…. ” (i.e., providing a state of personal finance), in claim 4, the step of “… wherein the state of personal finance includes i) a periodic savings percentage; ii) an income to debt percentage; iii) an essential expenses percentage;...” (i.e., personal finance such as income to debt percentage), in claim 5, the step of “… providing a preset list of potential essential expenses and potential non-essential expenses, wherein receiving the financial data of the user further includes receiving categorization information for at least a first portion of the financial data ...” (i.e., providing financial data), in claim 6, the step of “… wherein facilitating presentation of the notification includes generating a celebratory message associated with the one or more financial goals ...” (i.e., generating a message), in claim 7, the step of “… receiving a request for coaching associated with the user; ...” (i.e., receiving a request), in claim 9, the step of “… wherein receiving the goal information associated with the user includes: receiving the goal information from the coaching user;...” (i.e., receiving goal information), in claim 10, the step of “… generating a debt repayment plan based on the debt information...” (i.e., generating a debt repayment plan), in claim 11, the step of “… wherein the debt repayment plan includes a total periodic payment comprising individual periodic payments for each of the plurality of debts ...” (i.e., including debt information), in claim 12, the step of “… generating a savings plan based on the savings information, the state of personal finance, and the goal information;...” (i.e., generating a saving plan), in claim 13, the step of “… wherein the goal information includes a savings goal, wherein the savings plan includes a periodic savings amount, ...” (i.e., including goal information), in claim 14, the step of “… receiving selection of an accountability partner;...” (i.e., receiving selection of a partner), in claim 15, the step of “… receiving a message originating from the accountability partner...” (i.e., receiving a message), in claim 16, the step of “… generating a budget payment plan based at least in part on the income information and the periodic expense information ...” (i.e., generating a budget payment plan), in claim 17, the step of “… generating a notification if a total amount of each of the plurality of expenses ...” (i.e., generating a notification), in claim 18, the step of “… receiving the financial data...” (i.e., receiving data), in claim 21, the step of “… initially limiting access to an additional feature of the financial tool; and permitting access to the additional feature of the financial tool when the determined progress indicates completion of at least one of the one or more financial goals.” (i.e., controlling an access), and in claim 22, the step of “… wherein the challenge information comprises (i) information associated with a financially challenging activity of the user during the first time interval, (ii) information associated with an unexpected expense during the first time interval, (iii) information associated with a category of expenses during the first time interval, (iv) information associated with a change in an activity of the user during the first time interval….” (i.e., challenge information) are all processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a fundamental economic practice but for the recitation of a generic computer component. Providing a financial concierge service to an individual based on the received financial data associated with a user is a most fundamental commercial process.
This is an abstract concept with nothing more and is also considered mere instructions to apply an exception akin to a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd.; Gottschalk and Versata Dev. Group, Inc.; see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
In dependent claims 2-7 and 9-22, the step claimed are rejected under the same analysis and rationale as the independent claim 1 above. Merely claiming the same process to provide a financial concierge service to an individual based on the received financial data associated with a user does not change the abstract idea without an inventive concept or significantly more. Clearly, the additional recited limitations in the dependent claims only refine the abstract idea further. Further refinement of an abstract idea does not convert an abstract idea into something concrete.
Therefore, claims 1-7 and 9-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record but not relied upon herein but pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure is listed in the enclosed PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YONG S PARK whose telephone number is (571)272-8349. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00 PM, EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bennett M. Sigmond can be reached on (303)297-4411. 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.
/YONGSIK PARK/Examiner, Art Unit 3694
June 26, 2026
/BENNETT M SIGMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3694
Prosecution Insights