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
This action is in reply to the amendment filed 08/07/2025.
Claim 1 has been amended and new claim 22 is added. Claims 1-7 and 9-22 are pending and have been examined on the merits (claim 1 being independent).
The amendment filed 08/07/2025 to the claims has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed 08/07/2025 have been fully considered.
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 U.S.C. 101 have been maintained and clarified in view of the USPTO MPEP 2106.
Applicant arguments (see Applicant’s remarks, pages 8-21)
(1) 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 9), are not found persuasive.
Examiner response: 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 “Even if it is alleged that the claims do recite an abstract idea, to which Applicant does not acquiesce, Applicant submits that the claims, at least as amended, are not directed to any abstract idea because the claims, at least as amended, would integrate any such alleged abstract idea into a practical application.” (see page 12), are not found persuasive.
Examiner response: 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”, 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.
(3) Applicant’s arguments that “Therefore, like the claims in DDR and under the guidance of the M.P.E.P., Applicant's claims integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical solution.” (see page 21), are not found persuasive.
Examiner response: In DDR, the claims here are not like those the Court found patent eligible in DDR, in which the inventive concept was in the modification of conventional mechanics behind website display to produce a dual-source integrated hybrid display because applicant’s claims here do not address problems unique to the Internet or require an arguably inventive device or technique for displaying information. So DDR has no applicability.
(4) 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 21), are not found persuasive.
Examiner response: 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 over a generic computer network with a generic computer element. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
With regard to the rejections of claims under 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant’s arguments and amendments have been considered but are moot as a new ground of rejection has been added and Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that Applicant is arguing newly amended claim language. As noted in the citation above the prior art and it is addressed by the rejections under 35 USC 103. Further, Examiner responses for Applicant’s arguments below:
(1) With regard to the arguments of claims independent 1 and new claim 22, Applicant’s arguments and amendments have been considered but are moot as a new ground of rejection has been added and Examiner notes that Applicant is arguing newly amended claim language.
(2) With regard to the arguments of claims 6, Applicant’s arguments has been considered but are not persuasive, clarifying citations with regard the Wilks has been made to the 35 USC §103 rejection above and Applicant seems to be interpreting the claim language more narrowly/specifically than what is recited. The Examiner considers that sending an alert when a goal is met, the alert itself is an celebratory message.
(3) With regard to the arguments of claims 9, Applicant’s arguments has been considered but are not persuasive, clarifying citations with regard the Prasad (see also ¶ [0051-0052]) has been made to the 35 USC §103 rejection above and Applicant seems to be interpreting the claim language more narrowly/specifically than what is recited.
(4) With regard to the arguments of claims 11, Applicant’s arguments has been considered but are not persuasive, clarifying citations with regard the Manganiello (see also ¶ [0046] and [0069]) has been made to the 35 USC §103 rejection above and Applicant seems to be interpreting the claim language more narrowly/specifically than what is recited.
(5) With regard to the arguments of claims 13, Applicant’s arguments has been considered but are not persuasive, clarifying citations with regard the Prasad (see also ¶ [0070-0074]) has been made to the 35 USC §103 rejection above and Applicant seems to be interpreting the claim language more narrowly/specifically than what is recited.
(6) With regard to the arguments of claims 14, Applicant’s arguments has been considered but are not persuasive, clarifying citations with regard the Prasad (see also ¶ [0019]) has been made to the 35 USC §103 rejection above and Applicant seems to be interpreting the claim language more narrowly/specifically than what is recited.
(7) With regard to the arguments of claims 15, Applicant’s arguments has been considered but are not persuasive, clarifying citations with regard the Prasad (see also ¶ [0036]) has been made to the 35 USC §103 rejection above and Applicant seems to be interpreting the claim language more narrowly/specifically than what is recited.
(8) With regard to the arguments of claims 16, Applicant’s arguments has been considered but are not persuasive, clarifying citations with regard the Arora (see also ¶ [0069] and [0073]) has been made to the 35 USC §103 rejection above and Applicant seems to be interpreting the claim language more narrowly/specifically than what is recited.
(9) With regard to the arguments of claims 17, clarifying citations with regard the Wilks (see also C3, L45-53) has been made to the 35 USC §103 rejection above and Applicant seems to be interpreting the claim language more narrowly/specifically than what is recited. The Examiner considers that the recited claim “the income event” reads on "budget period".
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., claim 1) are identified to encompass the abstract idea include: receiving… financial data …, importing… financial data…, updating… budget information…, determining… state of personal finance …, facilitating… presentation of the state of personal finance…, receiving… goal information associated with the user…, receiving… challenge information associated with the user…, determining… progress of the one or more financial goals…, determining… a total amount of funds available…, allocating… the total amount of funds available …, determining… a first extra payment amount…, allocating… a first extra payment amount…, allocating… a portion of a remainder of the total amount of funds available…, and facilitating… presentation of a notification…
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.
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”, 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 data 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 data 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 generic computer with 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.
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.
In the rejections below, where claims are currently amended, this is indicated by underlining.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9, 12-16, and 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arora, Dhruv et al. (hereinafter Arora), WO 2018/033934 A1 in view of Prasad et al. (hereinafter Prasad), US Publication Number 2014/0067712 A1 in view of Caldwell, US Publication Number 2016/0180452 A1 in further view of Diggdon et al. (hereinafter Diggdon), US Patent Number 12008521 B1.
Regarding claim 1:
Arora discloses the following:
A method comprising: (Arora: See abstract)
receiving (reads on “The processor is configured to execute the instructions to receive, via an interface, an income information and an expenses information from the user.”) financial data in a digital file associated with a user on a user device via a network (reads on “the application 108 may be downloaded from a remote application store or a remote server onto the electronic device 104 over a communication network, such as a wired or a wireless communication network.”) from software executed by a computing device operated by a financial institution; (Arora: See paragraph [0007], and see also [0033])
automatically importing (reads on “execute the instructions to determine a spend capital (SC) estimate for the user based on the received income information”) the financial data from the received digital file; (Arora: See paragraph [0007] “The processor is further configured to execute the instructions to determine a spend capital (SC) estimate for the user based on the received income information. The processor is further configured to execute the instructions to determine a spend capital allocation pie (SCAP) estimate for the user based on the received expenses information.’)
updating (reads on “a financial plan is generated based”) budget information based at least in part on the received financial data; (Arora: See paragraph [0091] “the user 102 is provisioned UIs enabling him/her to change the expenses information to match the SCAP estimate to the SC estimate. At operation 1410, a financial plan is generated based, at least in part, of the matching of SC estimate and SCAP estimate.”)
determining (reads on “in addition the SC and SCAP information, the user 102 may provide inputs related to goals, risks, loans, etc. in order to facilitate generation of the financial plan.”) 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 (reads on “inputs related to goals, risks, loans”) associated with a plurality of debts; (Arora: See paragraph [0091])
facilitating (reads on “the financial plan may be in the form of a report displayed to the user 102 on a display of an electronic device (such as, the electronic device 104) or printed as output for reference of the user”) presentation of the state of personal finance in association with the updated budget information via a graphical user interface (GUI) generated by the user device; (Arora: See paragraph [0091])
Arora does not explicitly disclose the following, however Prasad further teaches:
receiving (reads on “receive financial goal information indicative of a client's financial goal and account information indicative of an account (e.g., savings account, investment account) associated with the financial goal”) goal information associated with the user, the goal information indicative of one or more financial goals of the user; (Prasad: See paragraph [0003])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify generating a financial plan for the user based on the matching of the spend capital estimate and the spend capital allocation pie estimate, and providing the generated financial plan to the user of Arora to include generating a progress-to-goal report based on progress-to-goal information by mapping financial goal information to account information (e.g., by mapping the financial goal to the account associated with the financial goal), as taught by Prasad, in order to provide the client’s progress towards each of their financial goals. (See Prasad, paragraphs [0005-0006])
Arora and Prasad do not explicitly disclose the following, however Caldwell further teaches:
receiving (reads on “select a different debt plan”) challenge information associated with the user, the challenge information indicative of one or more financial challenges (reads on “show when the user's debt account will be paid off if the user pays extra or accelerates payment on a debt account”) of the user during a first time interval; (Caldwell: See paragraphs [0082] “a user may select a different debt plan on the fly, which may trigger the graph module 306 to generate a new graphical representation of the debt data and the display module 308 to update the displayed graphical representation in real-time” and [0083] “The display module 308 may also include a line 410 showing the payoff trend across all the user's debt accounts if the user simply pays a minimum payment according to a standard payment plan. The display module 308 may also show when the user's debt account will be paid off if the user pays extra or accelerates payment on a debt account.”, and see also [0084-0085])
determining progress of the one or more financial goals (reads on “a status of one or more debt accounts for a time period, a payoff amount for a debt account, a payoff amount for an aggregated debt amount, an estimated debt payoff date, an amount of money saved from paying more than a minimum payment amount each pay period”) based at least in part on the state of personal finance and at least in part on the challenge information; (Caldwell: See paragraph [0072] “The characteristic module 304, in one embodiment, is configured to calculate or determine one or more characteristics of the debt data. The characteristics may include a status of one or more debt accounts for a time period, a payoff amount for a debt account, a payoff amount for an aggregated debt amount, an estimated debt payoff date, an amount of money saved from paying more than a minimum payment amount each pay period, and/or the like”, and see also [0083])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify generating a financial plan for the user based on the matching of the spend capital estimate and the spend capital allocation pie estimate, and providing the generated financial plan to the user of Arora to include showing an estimated goal by mapping financial goal and challenge information, as taught by Caldwell, in order to provide a customized progress to a financial goal. (See Caldwell, paragraphs [0071-0072] and [0082-0085])
Arora, Prasad, and Caldwell do not explicitly disclose the following, however Diggdon further teaches:
determining (reads on “access a budget and/or spending plan to identify, for example, surplus monthly cash flows, discretionary spending amounts, excess savings amounts, etc., usable to assist in payment of debt owed by a user.”) a total amount of funds available for extra periodic payments based on the financial data for paying the plurality of debts (reads on “various amounts of debt owed by a user (e.g., auto loans, credit card debt, debt to individual retail entities, and so on)”); (Diggdon: See figs. 3B and 10A; column 21, lines 9-64: “debt management logic 148 may be configured to access data in data storage system 128 to identify various amounts of debt owed by a user (e.g., auto loans, credit card debt, debt to individual retail entities, and so on), and to provide a graph or chart such as pie chart 502. Chart 502 may provide the user with a consolidated view of the debt owed by the user for accounts processed by system 110. debt management logic 148 may be further configured to access and aggregate data regarding a user's accounts at third-party institutions, such that chart 502 may provide a more complete picture of the user's overall debt situation. Screen display 500 may provide a total debt amount 508, and determine a periodic payment amount 509 (e.g., a monthly payment, etc.) and a time period 511 (e.g., a number of months, years, etc.) within which total debt amount 508 may be paid off based on periodic payment amount 509… debt management logic 148 may access a budget and/or spending plan to identify, for example, surplus monthly cash flows, discretionary spending amounts, excess savings amounts, etc., usable to assist in payment of debt owed by a user. Such data may further be used to accelerate an existing debt payment plan (e.g., such that an existing amount of debt is paid off in a shorter time frame than previously planned).”)
allocating (reads on “access a budget and/or spending plan to identify, for example, surplus monthly cash flows, discretionary spending amounts, excess savings amounts, etc., usable to assist in payment of debt owed by a user.”) the total amount of funds available for the extra periodic payments to the plurality of debts based on the received goal information, wherein allocating the total amount of funds available for the extra periodic payments includes: (Diggdon: See figs. 3B and 10A; column 21, lines 9-64: “debt management logic 148 may access a budget and/or spending plan to identify, for example, surplus monthly cash flows, discretionary spending amounts, excess savings amounts, etc., usable to assist in payment of debt owed by a user. Such data may further be used to accelerate an existing debt payment plan (e.g., such that an existing amount of debt is paid off in a shorter time frame than previously planned). In some embodiments, debt management logic 148 may track the user's progress in paying down one or more amounts of debt.”)
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, the first extra payment amount being less than the total amount of funds available for the extra periodic payments; (Diggdon: See figs. 3B and 10A; column 21, lines 9-64: “Screen display 500 may provide a total debt amount 508, and determine a periodic payment amount 509 (e.g., a monthly payment, etc.) and a time period 511 (e.g., a number of months, years, etc.) within which total debt amount 508 may be paid off based on periodic payment amount 509. debt management logic 148 may access a budget and/or spending plan to identify, for example, surplus monthly cash flows, discretionary spending amounts, excess savings amounts, etc., usable to assist in payment of debt owed by a user. Such data may further be used to accelerate an existing debt payment plan (e.g., such that an existing amount of debt is paid off in a shorter time frame than previously planned). In some embodiments, debt management logic 148 may track the user's progress in paying down one or more amounts of debt.”)
allocating, from the total amount of funds available for the extra periodic payments, the first extra payment amount to the first debt; and (Diggdon: See figs. 3B and 10A; column 21, lines 9-64: “Screen display 500 may provide a total debt amount 508, and determine a periodic payment amount 509 (e.g., a monthly payment, etc.) and a time period 511 (e.g., a number of months, years, etc.) within which total debt amount 508 may be paid off based on periodic payment amount 509. debt management logic 148 may access a budget and/or spending plan to identify, for example, surplus monthly cash flows, discretionary spending amounts, excess savings amounts, etc., usable to assist in payment of debt owed by a user. Such data may further be used to accelerate an existing debt payment plan (e.g., such that an existing amount of debt is paid off in a shorter time frame than previously planned). In some embodiments, debt management logic 148 may track the user's progress in paying down one or more amounts of debt. The user's current debt 512 may be displayed adjacent goal 514 in order to provide the user with a graphical indication of the relative progress of the user. Screen display 500 may further indicate an amount 516 required to reach the current goal. Similarly, a line graph 518 may show a user's debt amount 520 over time periods 522 via a line 524, and further indicate an average monthly debt amount 526.”)
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; (Diggdon: See figs. 3B and 10A; column 7, lines 46-56: “Debt management logic 148 may be used in connection with reducing the debt of a user. In some embodiments, debt management logic 148 may track one or more loans (e.g., personal loans, home loans, etc.) or other payment obligations (e.g., credit card payments due, etc.) and assist a user in establishing a plan for reducing and/or eliminating one or more sources of debt. As discussed in further detail with reference to FIG. 10, debt management logic 148 may assist users in consolidating debt, establishing and managing a debt payment plan, and monitoring the progress of a debt payment plan.”, and see also column 21, lines 9-64)
facilitating presentation of, via the GUI, 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; and (Diggdon: See column 21, lines 9-64: “debt management logic 148 may track the user's progress in paying down one or more amounts of debt. For example, as shown in FIG. 10A, a bar chart 510 may show a goal 514 that represents an amount of debt a user hopes to reduce the user's current debt to within a certain period of time, such as one month, etc. The user's current debt 512 may be displayed adjacent goal 514 in order to provide the user with a graphical indication of the relative progress of the user. Screen display 500 may further indicate an amount 516 required to reach the current goal. Similarly, a line graph 518 may show a user's debt amount 520 over time periods 522 via a line 524, and further indicate an average monthly debt amount 526.”, and see also figs. 3B and 10A-B)
facilitating presentation of a notification based at least in part on the progress of the one or more financial goals via the GUI including the paying of the plurality of debts. (Diggdon: See column 21, lines 9-64: “debt management logic 148 may track the user's progress in paying down one or more amounts of debt. For example, as shown in FIG. 10A, a bar chart 510 may show a goal 514 that represents an amount of debt a user hopes to reduce the user's current debt to within a certain period of time, such as one month, etc. The user's current debt 512 may be displayed adjacent goal 514 in order to provide the user with a graphical indication of the relative progress of the user. Screen display 500 may further indicate an amount 516 required to reach the current goal. Similarly, a line graph 518 may show a user's debt amount 520 over time periods 522 via a line 524, and further indicate an average monthly debt amount 526.”, and see also column 22, lines 58-62)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify generating a financial plan for the user based on the matching of the spend capital estimate and the spend capital allocation pie estimate, and providing the generated financial plan to the user of Arora to include determining surplus monthly cash flows, discretionary spending amounts, excess savings amounts, etc., usable to assist in payment of debt owed by a user as further be used to accelerate an existing debt payment plan (e.g., such that an existing amount of debt is paid off in a shorter time frame than previously planned), as taught by Diggdon, in order to accelerate an existing debt. (See Diggdon: See column 21, lines 9-64)
Regarding claim 2:
Arora discloses the following:
The method of claim 1, wherein the financial data includes i) income information (read on “an income information”); ii) expense information (reads on “an expenses information”); iii) debt information; iv) asset information; v) a credit score; or vi) any combination of i-v. (Arora: See paragraph [0006], and notes: the claimed limitation requires to read at least one or more from i-v.)
Regarding claim 3:
Arora does not explicitly disclose the following, however Prasad further teaches:
The method of claim 1, 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 (reads on “Progress-to-goal report 700 may include financial and account information region 702 for displaying financial goal information and account information associated with the financial goal information. For example, region 702 may include a goal type ( e.g., "Emergency Fund"), a goal amount (e.g., "$150,000"), a target date (e.g., "2015"), a savings to date ( e.g., "$50,000"), and an assumed rate of return (e.g., "4%").”) indicating a ratio of liquid savings to essential expenses; iii) a debt to gross income ratio indicating a ratio of monthly debt payments to monthly income; iv) a solvency ratio indicating a ratio of assets or liquidatable assets to liabilities; or v) any combination of i-iv. (Prasad: See paragraph [0019] “a client may tell a financial advisor that they want to set up an emergency fund for any type of emergency that may occur in the client's household. The financial advisor may use the financial goal management system to establish an emergency fund goal for the client, link it to a particular savings or investment account, and capture the client's desired timeframe for the emergency fund goal and the level of risk the client is willing to take related to the investments in that account. The financial goal management system may then generate a calculated monthly savings amount for meeting that goal within the client's timeframe and show the financial advisor the client's progress towards achieving the emergency fund goal (e.g., by displaying a progress bar indicating that the client is X % of the way to meeting the emergency fund goal).”, and Notes: the claimed limitation requires to read at least one or more from i-v., and see also [0070-0071])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify generating a financial plan for the user based on the matching of the spend capital estimate and the spend capital allocation pie estimate, and providing the generated financial plan to the user of Arora to include generating a progress-to-goal report based on progress-to-goal information by mapping financial goal information to account information (e.g., by mapping the financial goal to the account associated with the financial goal), as taught by Prasad, in order to provide the client’s progress towards each of their financial goals. (See Prasad, paragraphs [0005-0006])
Regarding claim 4:
Arora, Prasad, and Caldwell do not explicitly disclose the following, however Diggdon further teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the state of personal finance includes i) a periodic savings percentage; ii) an income to debt percentage; iii) an essential expenses percentage; and iv) a non-essential expenses percentage. (Diggdon: See figs. 3B-11, and Notes: Examiner considers that these non-functional claim limitations describe an element in terms of its structure, material, or specific actions, rather than its function. These limitations are typically not given any patentable weight. )
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify generating a financial plan for the user based on the matching of the spend capital estimate and the spend capital allocation pie estimate, and providing the generated financial plan to the user of Arora to include a cash flow module, a savings plan module, a debt monitor module, a spending report module, a budget module, a retirement planning module, a real estate module, an investments module, and income summary, as taught by Diggdon, in order to show a comprehensive individual finance. (See Diggdon: See figs. 3B-11)
Regarding claim 5:
Arora discloses the following:
The method of claim 1, further comprising 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, the categorization information indicative of one or more potential essential expenses or one or more potential non-essential expenses from the preset list of potential essential expenses and potential non-essential expenses. (Arora: See paragraph [0054] “the estimate of lifetime expenses/spends is determined by allocating funds to various spending categories desired by the user, such as for example categories like lifestyle, essentials, charity etc. Such an estimate is represented using a spending distribution pattern, exemplarily referred to herein as 'Spend Capital Allocation Pie estimate' (abbreviated hereinafter as 'SCAP estimate'). That is, the SCAP estimate may be determined as sum of one or more of essential monthly spends, lifestyle recurring spends, responsibility recurring spends, lifestyle lump sum spends and responsibility lump sum spends of the user and the one or more relationships of the user.”, and see also [0079])
Regarding claim 7:
Arora does not explicitly disclose the following, however Prasad further teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving a request for coaching associated with the user; (Prasad: See paragraph [0051] “Once the client, the financial advisor, or financial goal management system 204 has opened and funded the account, the progress-to-goal reporting described herein is initiated.”)
providing access to the budget information to a coaching user; and (Prasad: See paragraph [0051] “Financial goal management system 204 may also request updated account information (e.g., changes in account balances), updated assumed rates of return, and updated client information, such as whether there are any changes in the client's life, allocation or investment strategies.”)
facilitating communication between the user and the coaching user via the GUI. (Prasad: See paragraph [0052] “Financial goal management system 204 may perform these periodic assessments more or less frequently in response to input from the client or the financial advisor. For example, information stored in financial goal management system 204 may be updated by a financial advisor based on their periodic conversations with their client that may identify new financial goals, updates to action steps, and/or removal of financial goals.”, and see also [0023])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify generating a financial plan for the user based on the matching of the spend capital estimate and the spend capital allocation pie estimate, and providing the generated financial plan to the user of Arora to include generating a progress-to-goal report based on progress-to-goal information by mapping financial goal information to account information (e.g., by mapping the financial goal to the account associated with the financial goal), as taught by Prasad, in order to provide the client’s progress towards each of their financial goals. (See Prasad, paragraphs [0005-0006])
Regarding claim 9:
Arora does not explicitly disclose the following, however Prasad further teaches:
The method of claim 7, wherein receiving the goal information associated with the user includes: receiving the goal information from the coaching user; and (Prasad: See paragraph [0003] “a financial goal management system may receive financial goal information indicative of a client's financial goal and account information indicative of an account (e.g., savings account, investment account) associated with the financial goal.”)
generating, in response to receiving the goal information, a prompt for the user to accept or reject or modify the goal information as received from the coaching user. (Prasad: See paragraph [0052] “Financial goal management system 204 may perform these periodic assessments more or less frequently in response to input from the client or the financial advisor. For example, information stored in financial goal management system 204 may be updated by a financial advisor based on their periodic conversations with their client that may identify new financial goals, updates to action steps, and/or removal of financial goals.”, and see also ¶ [0051-0052])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify generating a financial plan for the user based on the matching of the spend capital estimate and the spend capital allocation pie estimate, and providing the generated financial plan to the user of Arora to include generating a progress-to-goal report based on progress-to-goal information by mapping financial goal information to account information (e.g., by mapping the financial goal to the account associated with the financial goal), as taught by Prasad, in order to provide the client’s progress towards each of their financial goals. (See Prasad, paragraphs [0005-0006])
Regarding claim 12:
Arora does not explicitly disclose the following, however Prasad further teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the financial data includes savings information, the method further comprising:
generating (reads on “generate a calculated monthly savings amount for meeting that goal”) a savings plan based on the savings information, the state of personal finance, and the goal information; and (Prasad: See paragraph [0019] “The financial goal management system may then generate a calculated monthly savings amount for meeting that goal within the client's timeframe and show the financial advisor the client's progress towards achieving the emergency fund goal (e.g., by displaying a progress bar indicating that the client is X % of the way to meeting the emergency fund goal). The financial goal management system may also generate a progress-to-goal report, which the client may receive on a semi-annual basis.”, and see also [0023])
facilitating (reads on “generate a progress-to-goal report, which the client may receive on a semi-annual basis”) presentation of the savings plan via the GUI. (Prasad: See paragraph [0019] “The financial goal management system may then generate a calculated monthly savings amount for meeting that goal within the client's timeframe and show the financial advisor the client's progress towards achieving the emergency fund goal (e.g., by displaying a progress bar indicating that the client is X % of the way to meeting the emergency fund goal). The financial goal management system may also generate a progress-to-goal report, which the client may receive on a semi-annual basis.”, and see also [0023])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify generating a financial plan for the user based on the matching of the spend capital estimate and the spend capital allocation pie estimate, and providing the generated financial plan to the user of Arora to include generating a progress-to-goal report based on progress-to-goal information by mapping financial goal information to account information (e.g., by mapping the financial goal to the account associated with the financial goal), as taught by Prasad, in order to provide the client’s progress towards each of their financial goals. (See Prasad, paragraphs [0005-0006])
Regarding claim 13:
Arora does not explicitly disclose the following, however Prasad further teaches:
The method of claim 12, wherein the goal information includes a savings goal, wherein the savings plan includes a periodic savings amount, and wherein facilitating presentation of the savings plan via the GUI results in presentation of: (Prasad: See paragraphs [0069-0071], and see FIG. 7)
a current total savings amount; (Prasad: See paragraph [0070] “a savings to date (e.g., "$50,000")”)
a series of future total savings amounts over the course of a plurality of periods, wherein each of the future total savings amounts is an indication of a future total savings after addition of the periodic savings amount for a given number of periods; and (Prasad: See paragraph [0071] “Progress-to-goal report 700 may include progress-to-goal region 703 for displaying progress-to-goal information. Region 703 may include, for example, the target date, a progress-to-goal bar, and a progress-to-goal value (e.g., "40%").”, and see also ¶ [0070-0074])
a goal completion indication in association with the respective period of the plurality of periods in which the future total savings amount meets or exceeds the savings goal. (Prasad: See paragraph [0070] “Progress-to-goal report 700 may include financial and account information region 702 for displaying financial goal information and account information associated with the financial goal information. For example, region 702 may include a goal type ( e.g., "Emergency Fund"), a goal amount (e.g., "$150,000"), a target date (e.g., "2015"), a savings to date ( e.g., "$50,000"), and an assumed rate of return (e.g., "4%").”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify generating a financial plan for the user based on the matching of the spend capital estimate and the spend capital allocation pie estimate, and providing the generated financial plan to the user of Arora to include generating a progress-to-goal report based on progress-to-goal information by mapping financial goal information to account information (e.g., by mapping the financial goal to the account associated with the financial goal), as taught by Prasad, in order to provide the client’s progress towards each of their financial goals. (See Prasad, paragraphs [0005-0006])
Regarding claim 14:
Arora does not explicitly disclose the following, however Prasad further teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving selection of an accountability partner; and (Prasad: See paragraph [0051] “Once the client, the financial advisor, or financial goal management system 204 has opened and funded the account, the progress-to-goal reporting described herein is initiated.”)
transmitting the determined progress to the accountability partner. (Prasad: See paragraph [0051] “Financial goal management system 204 may generate a progress-to-goal report at periodic time intervals (e.g., every 6 months) for each financial goal and transmit the progress-to-goal report to the client.”, and see also ¶ [0019])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify generating a financial plan for the user based on the matching of the spend capital estimate and the spend capital allocation pie estimate, and providing the generated financial plan to the user of Arora to include generating a progress-to-goal report based on progress-to-goal information by mapping financial goal information to account information (e.g., by mapping the financial goal to the account associated with the financial goal), as taught by Prasad, in order to provide the client’s progress towards each of their financial goals. (See Prasad, paragraphs [0005-0006])
Regarding claim 15:
Arora does not explicitly disclose the following, however Prasad further teaches:
The method of claim 14, further comprising:
wherein transmitting the determined progress (reads on “generate a progress-to-goal report based on progress-to-goal information 310.”) to the accountability partner includes presenting an option to respond, the method further comprising: receiving a message originating from the accountability partner in response to the accountability partner selecting the option to respond (reads on “information stored in financial goal management system 204 may be updated by a financial advisor based on their periodic conversations with their client that may identify new financial goals, updates to action steps, and/or removal of financial goals”); and facilitating presentation of the message via the GUI. (Prasad: See paragraphs [0052] “Financial goal management system 204 may perform these periodic assessments more or less frequently in response to input from the client or the financial advisor. For example, information stored in financial goal management system 204 may be updated by a financial advisor based on their periodic conversations with their client that may identify new financial goals, updates to action steps, and/or removal of financial goals.” And [0054] “financial goal management system 204 may generate a progress-to-goal report based on progress-to-goal information 310. In another example, financial goal management system 204 may generate an activity record by mapping financial goal information 302 to account information 308 (e.g., by mapping the financial goal to the account associated with the financial goal). Subsequently, financial goal management system 204 may transmit the report to a computing device”, and see also ¶ [0036])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify generating a financial plan for the user based on the matching of the spend capital estimate and the spend capital allocation pie estimate, and providing the generated financial plan to the user of Arora to include generating a progress-to-goal report based on progress-to-goal information by mapping financial goal information to account information (e.g., by mapping the financial goal to the account associated with the financial goal), as taught by Prasad, in order to provide the client’s progress towards each of their financial goals. (See Prasad, paragraphs [0005-0006])
Regarding claim 16:
Arora discloses the following:
The method of claim 1, wherein the financial data includes income information and periodic expense information, wherein the income information includes an amount and a timing for a plurality of income events occurring within a set period, wherein the periodic expense information includes an amount and a due date for a plurality of expenses occurring within the set period, the method further comprising: (Arora: See paragraph [0054] “the tool 106 is configured to determine an estimate of lifetime expenses/spends for the user 102. For this purpose, the profile input section 206 may further display fields for receiving numerical values related to expenses information from the user 102. The term "expenses" as used herein may refer to any kind of outflows, including all kinds of expenses, real estate investments, taxes, legacy, etc. In particular, the expenses information may include information about, such as, but not limited to, one or more of essential monthly spends, lifestyle recurring spends, responsibility recurring spends, lifestyle lump sum spends and responsibility lump sum spends of the user and the one or more relationships of the user.”)
generating (reads on “the estimate of lifetime expenses/spends is determined by allocating funds to various spending categories desired by the user”) a budget payment plan based at least in part on the income information and the periodic expense information, wherein generating the budget payment plan includes allocating each of the plurality of expenses to income events of the plurality of income events based on the amount and timing of the plurality of income events and the amount and timing of the plurality of expenses; and (Arora: See paragraph [0054] “the estimate of lifetime expenses/spends is determined by allocating funds to various spending categories desired by the user, such as for example categories like lifestyle, essentials, charity etc. Such an estimate is represented using a spending distribution pattern, exemplarily referred to herein as 'Spend Capital Allocation Pie estimate' (abbreviated hereinafter as 'SCAP estimate'). That is, the SCAP estimate may be determined as sum of one or 20 more of essential monthly spends, lifestyle recurring spends, responsibility recurring spends, lifestyle lump sum spends and responsibility lump sum spends of the user and the one or more relationships of the user. Such SCAP spends could be in any form, like monthly, quarterly, half yearly, annually, intermittent, one time, multiple time, etc.”, and see also ¶ [0069] and [0073])
facilitating presentation of the budget payment plan via the GUI. (Arora: See paragraph [0062] “The allocation of the funds to various spending categories is shown as the first SCAP distribution 406. For example, 17% of the lifetime spends may be allocated to category 'Lifestyle', 12% to 'Responsibility', 10% to 'Legacy', 12% to 'Charity', 10% to 'Real Estate', 24% to 'Tax' and 15% to 'Essentials'.”)
Regarding claim 18:
Arora discloses the following:
The method of claim 1, wherein receiving financial data associated with the user includes:
establishing a digital connection with a financial institution; and (Arora: See paragraph [0032] “a simplified representation 100 of a user 102 accessing a financial planning tool 106 (hereinafter sometimes simply referred to as tool 106) on an electronic device 104 is shown”, and see also [0094])
receiving (reads on “receiving, via an interface, an income information and an expenses information from the user”) the financial data via the digital connection (reads on “via an interface”). (Arora: See paragraph [0006], and see also [0032])
Regarding claim 21:
Arora does not explicitly disclose the following, however Prasad further teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein automatically importing the financial data includes automatically importing the financial data into a financial tool, the method further comprising: initially limiting access to an additional feature of the financial tool; and (Prasad: See paragraph [0018] “The financial goal management system may capture and prioritize a client's financial goals, determine action steps to achieve the client's goals, link one or more accounts to the client's financial goals, calculate a recommended monthly savings amount for achieving the client's financial goals, and generate and deliver progress-to-goal reports indicative of the client's progress towards each of their financial goals.”)
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. (Prasad: See paragraph [0080] “If the financial goal management system determines that the financial goal is not still in process, process 800 may end because the client has either achieved or canceled their financial goal.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify generating a financial plan for the user based on the matching of the spend capital estimate and the spend capital allocation pie estimate, and providing the generated financial plan to the user of Arora to include generating a progress-to-goal report based on progress-to-goal information by mapping financial goal information to account information (e.g., by mapping the financial goal to the account associated with the financial goal), as taught by Prasad, in order to provide the client’s progress towards each of their financial goals. (See Prasad, paragraphs [0005-0006])
Regarding claim 22:
Arora and Prasad do not explicitly disclose the following, however Caldwell further teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the challenge information comprises
(i) information associated with a financially challenging activity of the user during the first time interval, (Caldwell: See paragraph [0083] “The display module 308 may also include a line 410 showing the payoff trend across all the user's debt accounts if the user simply pays a minimum payment according to a standard payment plan. The display module 308 may also show when the user's debt account will be paid off if the user pays extra or accelerates payment on a debt account.”, and see also [0071-0072], Notes: The recited claim requires at least one of items (i) through (iv))
(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, or any combination of (i)-(iv).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify generating a financial plan for the user based on the matching of the spend capital estimate and the spend capital allocation pie estimate, and providing the generated financial plan to the user of Arora to include showing an estimated goal by mapping financial goal and challenge information, as taught by Caldwell, in order to provide a more accurate progress to a financial goal. (See Caldwell, paragraphs [0071-0072])
Regarding claims 19 and 20: it is similar scope to claim 1, and thus it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arora in view of Prasad in view of Caldwell in view of Diggdon in further view of Wilks et al. (hereinafter Wilks), US Patent Number 7895102 B1.
Regarding claim 6:
Arora, Prasad, Caldwell, and Diggdon do not explicitly disclose the following, however Wilks further teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein facilitating presentation of the notification includes generating (reads on “if a goal is met or if it is determined that the probability of meeting a goal has changed, then the user is notified, e.g., by sending an alert to the user.”) a celebratory message associated with the one or more financial goals when the determined progress indicates completion of the one or more financial goals. (Wilks: See column 9, lines 18-28)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify generating a financial plan for the user based on the matching of the spend capital estimate and the spend capital allocation pie estimate, and providing the generated financial plan to the user of Arora to include generating an alert if a goal is met, as taught by Wilks, in order to provide an update to a user for achieving a goal. (See Wilks, column 9, lines 18-28)
Regarding claim 17:
Arora, Prasad, Caldwell, and Diggdon do not explicitly disclose the following, however Wilks further teaches:
The method of claim 16, wherein generating the budget payment plan further includes generating (reads on “receives a text message or phone call saying that they have exceeded the goal for fast food spending”) a notification if a total amount of each of the plurality of expenses assigned to a given income event exceeds the amount of the given income event. (Wilks: See column 9, lines 50-60: “a user may set a monthly spending limit on fast food, and if that limit is exceeded as determined by the system's monitoring, the user receives a text message or phone call saying that they have exceeded the goal for fast food spending and that it is recommended that the user stop spending on fast food for the remainder of the budget period (e.g., the remainder of the month).”, and see also C3, L45-53, Notes: The Examiner considers that the recited claim “the income event” reads on "budget period".)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify generating a financial plan for the user based on the matching of the spend capital estimate and the spend capital allocation pie estimate, and providing the generated financial plan to the user of Arora to include generating an alert if a goal is met, as taught by Wilks, in order to provide an update to a user for achieving a goal. (See Wilks, column 9, lines 18-60)
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arora in view of Prasad in view of Caldwell in view of Diggdon in further view of Manganiello, US Publication Number 2007/0156552 A1.
Regarding claim 10:
Arora, Prasad, Caldwell, and Diggdon do not explicitly disclose the following, however Manganiello further teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
generating (reads on “calculates and displays the "Total Balance" of all non-negotiable debt in a visual field 254”) a debt repayment plan based on the debt information, the state of personal finance, and the goal information; and (Manganiello: See paragraph [0065], and see also FIG. 12)
facilitating (reads on “calculates and displays the "Total Minimum Payments" for all the non-negotiable debt in a visual field 256”) presentation of the debt repayment plan via the GUI. (Manganiello: See paragraph [0065], and see also FIG. 12)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify generating a financial plan for the user based on the matching of the spend capital estimate and the spend capital allocation pie estimate, and providing the generated financial plan to the user of Arora to include calculating and displaying a payment option for debt, as taught by Manganiello, in order to provide a debt payment plan. (See Manganiello, paragraphs [0065-0069])
Regarding claim 11:
Arora, Prasad, Caldwell, and Diggdon do not explicitly disclose the following, however Manganiello further teaches:
The method of claim 10, wherein the debt repayment plan includes a total periodic payment comprising individual periodic payments for each of the plurality of debts, and wherein facilitating presentation of the debt repayment plan via the GUI results in presentation of: (Manganiello: See abstract, FIG. 12 and 13)
a current total debt value (reads on “displays the "Total Balance" of all non-negotiable debt in a visual field 254”) based on the plurality of debts; (Manganiello: See paragraph [0065] and [0068], and see also FIG. 12 and 13)
a series of future total debt values over the course of a plurality of periods, wherein each of the future total debt values is an indication of a future total debt after payment of a given number of periods of individual periodic payments; and (Manganiello: See paragraph [0069] “The system 14 utilizes the information entered in the visual fields described in FIGS. 4-13 and provides a debt summary analysis 75 as shown in FIG. 14. The debt summary analysis generally provides the user with an analysis of the interest they will pay on their unsecured debt and their secured debt if they continue to make only the scheduled minimum payments.”, and see also FIG. 14 and ¶ [0046] and [0069])
a payoff indication for each of the plurality of debts in association with the respective period of the plurality of periods in which that respective debt is fully paid off. (Manganiello: See paragraph [0071] “The cash position statement 282 also provides an "Accelerated Margin Potential" visual field 287 displaying the accelerated margin potential. The accelerator margin potential is that portion of income which is set aside to pay additional amounts on expenses and debts. The amount can be to pay off the debt or expense faster or make the debt or expense less in amount.”, and see also [0046])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify generating a financial plan for the user based on the matching of the spend capital estimate and the spend capital allocation pie estimate, and providing the generated financial plan to the user of Arora to include calculating and displaying a payment option for debt, as taught by Manganiello, in order to provide a debt payment plan. (See Manganiello, paragraphs [0065-0069])
Regarding claim 10: it is similar scope to claim 1, and thus it is rejected under similar rationale.
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.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YONG S PARK whose telephone number is (571)272-8349. The examiner can normally be reached on 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
January 28, 2026
/BENNETT M SIGMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3694