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 .
Acknowledgments
This submission filed on 25 July 2025 is acknowledged.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-11 and 13-16 are pending.
In the Amendment filed on 07/25/25, claims 1, 4, 7, 9, 11 and 13 were amended, claim 12 was cancelled, and no claims were added.
Claims 1-11 and 13-16 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the claim objection
The objection is withdrawn in view of the claim amendments. However, the claim amendments give rise to a new objection.
Regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112
In view of the claim amendments the rejections are withdrawn in part. Not all of the points of rejection have been addressed by the claim amendments. The claim amendments give rise to new rejections.
Regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The Office responds to Applicant's arguments below.
Applicant argues:
The Examiner indicated the rejection of claims 1-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 101, asserting that the claims recite the abstract idea of "managing and tracking client financial data," which is grouped under "certain methods of organizing human activity," specifically, "fundamental economic practices or principles," and/or "commercial or legal interactions." Office Action at page 6.
However, contrary to this assertion, the Applicant asserts that claim 1 and its dependent claims recite a specific configuration of physical elements which are configured to generate and present particular information. These physical elements include, for example, management platform comprising at least one server and a data storage device, said server comprising a communication interface for establishing a communication link with at least one user device having a display device. (Response, pp. 8-9; underlining added)
The Office responds:
The language underlined above, and the specific details that follow ("management platform comprising at least one server and a data storage device, said server comprising a communication interface for establishing a communication link with at least one user device having a display device"), is just another way of saying that the claims recite an abstract idea ("generate and present particular information") applied using generic computer elements ("a specific configuration of physical elements which are configured to").
Applicant further argues:
The Applicant asserts that to the extent the claims recite an abstract idea, such is integrated into a practical application. In particular, the Applicant asserts that the claims recite a technical solution to a number of problems, including (1) problems associated with utilizing a variety of different systems or applications for different aspects of the business, where those systems and applications are disparate, (2) the problem that businesses might have thousands of client or potential clients and need a technological solution to real-time tracking, updating and information generation capabilities relative to those clients, and (3) the problem that existing systems may not suitably allow the business to track a client from intake through rendering of services because the different systems or applications don't communicate and provide a comprehensive picture of the client within the context of the business. (Response, p. 9)
The Office responds:
As argued above, Applicant sets forth putative problems, but Applicant does not indicate what the alleged technical solution is, or how it provides a practical application. Accordingly, Applicant offers no substantive statement as to how the additional elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or what the practical application is. Applicant has not provided the Office with a substantive point to respond to.
Also, in particular, it is not clear from the above argument what the actual problems are, as the putative problems are presented at a high level and couched in vague terms (e.g., "(1) problems associated with utilizing a variety of different systems or applications for different aspects of the business, where those systems and applications are disparate").
Further, there is no reference in the claims to anything that solves problems pertaining to the ideas of "different systems or applications," "systems and applications are disparate," or "different systems or applications don’t communicate." As best understood, this terminology has merely been appropriated from Example 42 of the Guidance, but there is no such substance in the claims or disclosure.
Further, the reference to "real-time tracking, updating and information generation" for "thousands" of clients appears merely to highlight that Applicant's invention lies in part in the application of a generic computer to expedite the abstract idea of the processing of certain information, but such expediting is merely the normal concomitant advantage of applying a generic computer to an abstract process, and does not amount to an improvement in computer functioning/other technology or any other type of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application.
Applicant further argues:
It will be appreciated that these technical problems may exist in a large number of settings, and thus has applicability in a number of different applications, including collecting, storing, and presenting client information, particularly client financial and insurance-related information, including managing client status. Thus, while the claims recite a technical solution to a technical problem, the claims also claim a beneficial use of that solution in a particular environment, namely a client financial management environment. The Applicant also asserts that these same limitations also result in the claims reciting significantly more than an idea. (Response, p. 9)
The Office responds:
The fact that the claims pertain specifically to a client financial management environment, and that the problems apply in various other settings, does not contribute to demonstrating that the claims encompass integration of the abstract idea into a practical application.
Applicant further argues that the claims are analogous to Example 42 of the Guidance (Response, pp. 9-11).
The Office responds:
Example 42 importantly includes aspects of, e.g., standardization (converting from a non-standard format to a standard format), allowing communication/sharing information between systems that use different non-standard formats, automatically notifying users of updated data in real time, etc. In contrast, the instant claims merely collect data from multiple sources and present (display) it or information based on it; they contain nothing analogous to standardizing / converting from a non-standard to a standard format, automatically notifying users of updates, etc. - no such problem is solved by the instant claims.
Also, it is noted that graphical display of information is merely a generic computer element applied to an abstract idea.
Also, it is noted that 0039 of Applicant's specification merely teaches storing credentials and using them to access real time financial account information from external financial systems. This teaching is not analogous to Example 42, nor is it anything more than applying an abstract idea using generic computer elements and/or generically linking to a particular field of use.
Also, regarding a transformation ("a transformed, unified client information detail based thereon, including a generated a [sic] financial proposal based on that information …" (Response, p. 10)), it is noted that, as to the question of whether a transformation amounts to a practical application, on this point MPEP 2106.04(d)I. directs one to 2106.05(c), which states:
An "article" includes a physical object or substance.
4. The nature of the article transformed. Transformation of a physical or tangible object or substance is more likely to provide significantly more (or integrate a judicial exception into a practical application) than the transformation of an intangible concept such as a contractual obligation or mental judgment.
Applicant's purported transformation is not of a physical or tangible object or substance.
Regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive and/or are moot in view of the portions of previously applied prior art reference Gurvitch that are cited in the instant rejections as teaching the amended claimed subject matter.
Drawings/Specification
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because:
- specification 0029 refers to Fig. 3 while describing Fig. 2.
- specification 0030 refers to Fig. 1 while describing Fig. 3.
- with reference to Fig. 4, specification 0058, 0059, 0060, 0062 refer to settings option 200n, but "settings" is not numbered in Fig. 4 and there is no reference numeral 200n in Fig. 4.
- specification 0062 refers to settings option 200a, but "settings" is not numbered in Fig. 4, and reference numeral 200a refers to "employees" in Fig. 4.
- specification 0066 refers to Figs. 7A-C, but Figs. 7A-C were replaced by Figs. 7A-1 through 7A-4, 7B-1 through 7B-4, and 7C-1 through 7C-3 in the replacement drawings filed on 10/19/23. The reference to Figs. 7A-C should be changed to conform to the replacement figures.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) or, where applicable, amendment to the specification, are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
In addition to Replacement Sheets containing the corrected drawing figure(s), applicant is required to submit a marked-up copy of each Replacement Sheet including annotations indicating the changes made to the previous version. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheets” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.121(d)(1). Failure to timely submit the proposed drawing and marked-up copy, or amendments to the specification, will result in the abandonment of the application.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1, 6, 8, 9 and 16 use the terms "status" and "phase." Specification 0051 states: "In one embodiment, the status of a client or policy is with reference to a designated phase." The disclosure offers no further explanation or examples of what a "status" is or could be. Rather, the discussion of statuses and phases (aside from nominal mentions) at 0051-0057 and 0064 appears to use these two terms as referring to the same thing. Accordingly, based on the disclosure as a whole, the terms "status" and "phase" are interpreted as referring to the same thing.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
claim 1: "a financial engine, said financial engine configured to: receive …; access … ; and [sic] generate …; and generate …";
claim 1: "said server comprising a communication interface for establishing a communication link …"
claim 7: "a communication engine configured to generate and send, …"
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites:
access, …; and
generate …; and
generate ….
The word "and" is recited between the third-to-last step and the second-to-last step. This instance of "and" is understood to be a clerical error and should be deleted.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Means Plus Function
Claim 1 recites "a financial engine [generic placeholder] configured to receive …; access … ; and [sic] generate …; and generate … [functional language]."
The claim limitations above do not use the word “means” but are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations use generic placeholders that are coupled with functional language, as indicated above, without reciting sufficient structures to perform the recited functions and the generic placeholders are not preceded by structural modifiers.
These claim limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed functions and/or to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the functions. See specification as filed, paragraphs 0008, 0046-0048, 0050, and abstract (regarding financial engine); note "communication engine" is not mentioned in the specification. Therefore, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claims so that the claim limitations will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 2-11 and 13-16 are (also) rejected by virtue of their dependency from a rejected claim.
Relative Term
Claim 4 recites "wherein said income sources are indicated by a different color indicator." The term "different" is a relative term, and it is not clear what it is relative to (from what is the color indicator different?). As best understood in view of Applicant's disclosure and the previous version of the claim, Applicant intended the claim to recite: "wherein said income sources are indicated by [[a]] respective different color indicators."
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 1-11 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because 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.
Claims 1-11 and 13-16 are directed to a system, which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES)
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a system for managing and tracking client financial data and generating a financial proposal.
For claim 1, the limitations (indicated below in bold) of:
receive information regarding a plurality of clients, said information comprising, as to each of said plurality of clients, client identity information, client status information comprising factors relevant to a financial condition of said client, and client financial information regarding a plurality of client financial accounts;
store, in a database associated with said data storage device, said information regarding said plurality of clients, in electronic format;
generate information for causing said display device of said user device to display a graphical user interface indicating a plurality of client phases and an indication of each client with a respective one of said phases based upon the client status information for each client; and
implement a financial engine, said financial engine configured to:
receive input of a selection of at least one of said clients;
access, in real time, financial data regarding said plurality of financial accounts of said at least one of said clients from one or more external financial systems hosting said plurality of financial accounts; and
generate information for causing said display device of said user device to display a graphical user interface comprising at least one graphical indicator of financial amounts associated with said plurality of accounts of said at least one of said clients; and
generate and display in real-time at least one financial proposal based at least in part upon said stored client status information and said accessed financial data.
as drafted, constitute a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers "certain methods of organizing human activity," specifically, "fundamental economic practices or principles" and/or "commercial or legal interactions," but for recitation of generic computer components. The Examiner notes that "fundamental economic practices" or "fundamental economic principles" describe concepts relating to the economy and commerce, including hedging, insurance, and mitigating risks, and "commercial interactions" or "legal interactions" include agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)II.A.,B. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers "fundamental economic practices or principles" and/or "commercial or legal interactions," but for recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, claim 1 recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A - Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea.)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional elements of a management platform, said management platform comprising at least one server and a data storage device, said server comprising a communication interface for establishing a communication link with at least one user device having a display device, said management platform further comprising a processor, a memory and machine readable code stored in said memory and executable by said processor to cause said server to:; in a database associated with said data storage device; in electronic format; causing said display device of said user device to display a graphical user interface; implement a financial engine, said financial engine configured to:; one or more external financial systems hosting; causing said display device of said user device to display a graphical user interface comprising; and display, that implement the abstract idea. These additional elements are not described by the applicant and they are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., one or more generic computer elements performing generic computer functions), such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer elements (all the additional elements except for "financial" (in the recitation "implement a financial engine, said financial engine configured to:") and "external financial" (in the recitation "one or more external financial systems hosting")) or generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use ("financial" and "external financial"). Accordingly, even in combination these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. (Step 2A - prong 2: NO. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a management platform, said management platform comprising at least one server and a data storage device, said server comprising a communication interface for establishing a communication link with at least one user device having a display device, said management platform further comprising a processor, a memory and machine readable code stored in said memory and executable by said processor to cause said server to:; in a database associated with said data storage device; in electronic format; causing said display device of said user device to display a graphical user interface; implement a financial engine, said financial engine configured to:; one or more external financial systems hosting; causing said display device of said user device to display a graphical user interface comprising; and display, to perform the noted steps amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer elements or generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer elements or generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept ("significantly more"). MPEP 2106.05 I.A.(i), (iv). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not provide significantly more. As such, claim 1 is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more.)
Dependent claims 2-11 and 13-16 are similarly rejected because they further define/narrow the abstract idea of independent claim 1 as discussed above, and/or do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept such as would render the claims eligible, whether each is considered individually or as an ordered combination.
As for further defining/narrowing the abstract idea:
Dependent claim 2 further describes the abstract idea, reciting "wherein said financial accounts comprise bank accounts, retirement accounts and/or insurance policies."
Dependent claim 3 further describes the abstract idea, reciting "wherein said graphical indicator of financial amounts comprises a graphical indicator of income from a plurality of different sources, wherein an amount of income from each source is independently indicated and selectable."
Dependent claim 4 further describes the abstract idea, reciting "wherein said income sources are indicated by a different color indicator."
Dependent claim 5 further describes the abstract idea, reciting "wherein said at least one of said clients comprises a client and spouse."
Dependent claim 6 further describes the abstract idea, reciting "wherein said phases are defined by a status of said client in relation to a business."
Dependent claim 7 further describes the abstract idea, reciting "generate and send, …, at least one … communication to said at least one of said clients."
Dependent claim 8 further describes the abstract idea, reciting "wherein said client status is … updated …."
Dependent claim 9 further describes the abstract idea, reciting "receives said client status as input from said user."
Dependent claim 10 further describes the abstract idea, reciting "wherein the step of receiving client financial information comprises … receiving real-time financial information regarding said client."
Dependent claim 11 further describes the abstract idea, reciting "wherein said real-time financial information comprises an account balance."
Dependent claim 13 further describes the abstract idea, reciting "store said client identity information in at least one first data table and store said client financial information in at least one second data table, said first data table linked to said second data table."
Dependent claim 14 further describes the abstract idea, reciting "wherein at least one identifier is common to both said first data table and said second data table."
Dependent claim 15 further describes the abstract idea, reciting "transform said client financial information."
Dependent claim 16 further describes the abstract idea, reciting "associate a client identifier with said client, wherein said plurality of client phases are indicated by a plurality of graphically indicated regions …said client identifier in association with one of said graphically indicated regions."
As for additional elements:
Dependent claim 7 recites "wherein said server is further configured to implement a communication engine configured to …, via a client interface, … electronic." This recitation is at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer element. Even in combination these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claim 8 recites "automatically" and "by said server." This recitation is at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer element. Even in combination these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claim 9 recites "wherein said server." This recitation is at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer element. Even in combination these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claim 10 recites "establishing a communication interface between said server and an external financial platform." This recitation is at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer element ("establishing a communication interface between said server and an … platform") or generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use ("external financial"). Even in combination these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claim 13 recites "wherein said processor further causes said server to store …." This recitation is at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer element. Even in combination these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claim 15 recites "wherein said financial engine is configured to … into a graphical interface." This recitation is at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer element ("wherein said … engine is configured to … into a graphical interface") or generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use ("financial"). Even in combination these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claim 16 recites "wherein said server is configured to … and wherein said server is configured to cause said graphical user interface to display …." This recitation is at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer element. Even in combination these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claims 2-6, 11 and 14 do not recite any additional elements, and accordingly, for the reasons provided above with respect to the independent claims, are not patent eligible.
Therefore, dependent claims 2-11 and 13-16 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 5-9 and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gurvitch et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0293108 A1), hereafter Gurvitch, in view of Li et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0047048 A1), hereafter Li.
For ease of reference, please refer to the higher quality figures of Gurvitch that are enclosed with the instant Office Action.
Regarding Claim 1
Gurvitch teaches:
…
receive (0022-0023, 0025-0028 user enters data as per Figs 2-10, 0039, 0152-0156, 0158, Fig. 42, 4202-4209, 4215-4217, 4219) information regarding a plurality of clients, said information comprising, as to each of said plurality of clients, client identity information (0004, 0026, 0028, Figs. 2, 4, 42, e.g., 4204, 0152, claim 1), client status information comprising factors relevant to a financial condition of said client (0004, Fig. 4, "Main Data Entry" includes risk profile for client ("risk toll" under "client preferences" at bottom left), Fig. 5, 508, Fig. 42, 4216 and Fig. 7, "Main Data Entry" includes 200f health history info of client; 0035, 0088, 0090, 0095, Figs. 2, "Main Data Entry" includes Quad: Develop, Protect, Monitor, Maintain, and A,B,C,D,E: Client, Prospect, Network, Family or Friend under "categories" at bottom right (see also Figs. 16, 17A, 17B)), and client financial information (0004, 0022, 0026, e.g., (c), (d), (e), 0039, Figs. 4-6, 42, e.g., 4209, 4206, 0153-0156, 0158, claim 1) regarding a plurality of client financial accounts;
store, in a database associated with said data storage device, said information regarding said plurality of clients, in electronic format; (0004, 0027, 0152-0154, 0156, Fig. 40)
generate information for causing said display device of said user device to display a graphical user interface indicating a plurality of client phases and an indication of each client with a respective one of said phases based upon the client status information for each client; and (0018, 0085-0086, 0088, 0090, 0095, 0107-0108, Figs. 2 (see "categories"), 4 (risk tolerance), 5 (risk tolerance), 7 (health history info), 16, 17A, 17B, 38)
implement a financial engine, said financial engine configured to: (0004 system/data processor, 0019 workflow processor, 0057-0058 / Fig. 10, 1002; 0062, 0065-0066, system, calculator; Fig. 39, system 10, Fig. 44 - the apparatus that carries out Fig. 44)
receive input of a selection of at least one of said clients; (0035, 0038-0039, 0085-0086, 0089, Fig. 16, 0107-0108, 0158, Fig. 44, 4402)
access in real time financial data regarding said plurality of financial accounts of said at least one of said clients from one or more external financial systems hosting said plurality of financial accounts; and (0004, 0023 (a) import data from external source, 0038-0039 e.g., account balance imported from 3rd party, Figs. 13 / 0067, 0156 / Fig 42, 4215)
generate information for causing said display device of said user device to display a graphical user interface comprising at least one graphical indicator of financial amounts associated with said plurality of accounts of said at least one of said clients; and (Fig. 11, 0061, Fig. 13, 0067, Figs. 33-36, 0161, Fig. 17C)
generate and display in real-time (0057 generate proposal in 1 minute instead of 20-60 minutes without calculator tool; 0059 proposal can be generated in 5 seconds) at least one financial proposal based at least in part upon said stored client status information and said accessed financial data. (0057-0059, 0061-0062, 0064-0066, 0158-0159, with reference to Figs. 10-11, 25-27, 44, 4408, all teaching generating/ displaying a proposal to rebalance / amounts to be transferred to accomplish the rebalance, based in part on risk preferences (stored client status information) (e.g., 0058 (a)-(e), 0061-0062, 0118, 0158-0159, Fig. 10, 1002, 1004), health history (stored client status information) (Fig. 42, 4216, 4221, 4222), and account balance information (Fig. 44, 4402, 4404; Figs. 11, 25 current values/balances) (accessed financial data))
Gurvitch does not explicitly disclose in its entirety but Li teaches:
a management platform (0003, 0038, claim 1, management system, comprising distributed computing system), said management platform comprising at least one server (0003, claim 1, business server) and a data storage device (0003, claim 1, i-o-t platform server is configured to store data), said server comprising a communication interface for establishing a communication link (0003, claims 1 and 10, business server configured to be in communication with/to transmit data for visualization) with at least one user device having a display device (claim 10, cause to display the data for visualization … on a business-end terminal), said management platform further comprising a processor (0038, node includes processor), a memory (0038, node includes memory) and machine readable code stored in said memory and executable by said processor to cause said server to (0038 application; claim 1, computer-readable storage mediums storing instructions that when executed by the distributed computing system, cause the system to execute software modules)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gurvitch's client management system for use by a financial advisor by incorporating therein these teachings of Li regarding a distributed computing environment, (1) because it would increase efficiency by employing one or more networked computers configured to execute in parallel to perform at least one common task, see Li, 0040, MPEP 2143.I.G., and (2) because such combination is just a matter of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, MPEP 2143.I.A.
Regarding Claim 2
Gurvitch in view of Li teaches the limitations of base claim 1 as set forth above. Gurvitch further teaches:
wherein said financial accounts comprise bank accounts, retirement accounts and/or insurance policies. (Fig. 5, see at 502, 504)
Regarding Claim 3
Gurvitch in view of Li teaches the limitations of base claim 1 as set forth above. Gurvitch further teaches:
wherein said graphical indicator of financial amounts comprises a graphical indicator of income from a plurality of different sources, wherein an amount of income from each source is independently indicated and selectable. (Fig. 13, 0067, Figs. 33-36, 0078-0079, Fig. 17C, "CASH FLOW" -"Income," 0106)
Regarding Claim 5
Gurvitch in view of Li teaches the limitations of base claim 1 as set forth above. Gurvitch further teaches:
wherein said at least one of said clients comprises a client and spouse. (Fig. 4, Fig. 2, see at 208, 211, 0031, Fig. 9, see at 912, 0056)
Regarding Claim 6
Gurvitch in view of Li teaches the limitations of base claim 1 as set forth above. Gurvitch further teaches:
wherein said phases are defined by a status of said client in relation to a business. (0035, 0088, 0090, 0095, 0108, Figs. 2, 4, 7, 16, 17A, 17B, 38)
Regarding Claim 7
Gurvitch in view of Li teaches the limitations of base claim 1 as set forth above. Gurvitch further teaches:
wherein said server is further configured to implement a communication engine configured to generate and send, via a client interface, at least one electronic communication to said at least one of said clients. (0029, Figs. 19, 30, 0109, Fig. 45, 4522-4524, 0162)
Regarding Claim 8
Gurvitch in view of Li teaches the limitations of base claim 1 as set forth above.
Gurvitch teaches automatically updating health question data (0051), insurance/investment data (by daily feed, 0054), and account data (by daily feed, 0039), where the automatic updating amounts to inputting new data overriding existing data. Also, Gurvitch teaches inputting status data (0004, Fig. 4, "Main Data Entry" includes risk profile for client ("risk toll" under "client preferences" at bottom left), Fig. 42, 4216 and Fig. 7, "Main Data Entry" includes 200f health history info of client; 0035, 0088, 0090, 0095, Figs. 2, "Main Data Entry" includes Quad: Develop, Protect, Monitor, Maintain, and A,B,C,D,E: Client, Prospect, Network, Family or Friend under "categories" at bottom right (see also Figs. 16, 17A, 17B)). But Gurvitch in view of Li does not explicitly teach automatically updating status data:
wherein said client status is automatically updated by said server.
However, it would be obvious to arrive at the above limitation by combining embodiments of Gurvitch (i.e., combining the automatically updating of one kind of data, as indicated above, with another kind of data that is inputted, namely, status data), (1) because Gurvitch endorses variations of the embodiments, Gurvitch 0164, (2) because such combination is just a matter of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, MPEP 2143.I.A., and (3) because updating in Gurvitch is just a matter of overwriting initially inputted data by inputting subsequent data at a subsequent time, and therefore updating status is equivalent to repeating the operation of inputting status data, which is obvious pursuant to legal precedent, MPEP 2144.VI.B. (Duplication of Parts), and automating an operation is obvious pursuant to legal precedent, MPEP 2144.III. (AUTOMATING A MANUAL ACTIVITY).
Regarding Claim 9
Gurvitch in view of Li teaches the limitations of base claim 1 as set forth above. Gurvitch further teaches:
wherein said server receives said client status as input from said user. (0023, 0027, 0035, 0088, 0090, 0095, Figs. 2, 4, 7, 16, 17A, 17B, 42, 4216)
Regarding Claim 13
Gurvitch in view of Li teaches the limitations of base claim 1 as set forth above. Gurvitch further teaches:
wherein said processor further casus said server to store said client identity information in at least one first data table (Fig. 40, 0127-0128, tblNameData) and store said client financial information in at least one second data table, said first data table linked to said second data table. (Fig. 40, 0027, 0127-0145)
Regarding Claim 14
Gurvitch in view of Li teaches the limitations of base claim 1 and intervening claim 13 as set forth above. Gurvitch further teaches:
wherein at least one identifier is common to both said first data table and said second data table. (0004, 0027-0028, 0053, 0080, claim 1)
Regarding Claim 15
Gurvitch in view of Li teaches the limitations of base claim 1 as set forth above. Gurvitch further teaches:
wherein said financial engine is configured to transform said client financial information into a graphical interface. (0019, 0057-0058, 0061-0062, 0064-0067, 0071, 0078-0080, Figs.10-11, 13, 25-27, 33-36)
Regarding Claim 16
Gurvitch in view of Li teaches the limitations of base claim 1 as set forth above. Gurvitch further teaches:
wherein said server is configured to associate a client identifier with said client, wherein said plurality of client phases are indicated by a plurality of graphically indicated regions and wherein said server is configured to cause said graphical user interface to display said client identifier in association with one of said graphically indicated regions. (0004, 0026-0028, 0053, 0088-0090, 0095, 0108, Figs. 2, 4, 5, 7, 16, 17A, 17B, 38, 40, claim 1)
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gurvitch et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0293108 A1), hereafter Gurvitch, in view of Li et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0047048 A1), hereafter Li, and further in view of Probetts et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0355063 A1), hereafter Probetts.
Regarding Claim 4
Gurvitch in view of Li teaches the limitations of base claim 1 and intervening claim 3 as set forth above. Gurvitch in view of Li does not explicitly disclose but Probetts teaches:
wherein said income sources are indicated by a different color indicator. (0211, Fig. 30A, 3022, 3028)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Gurvitch and Li by incorporating therein these teachings of Probetts regarding color-coding different income sources, (1) because it would make the visual data displayed on the GUI easier to take in, see Probetts, 0003, 0005, 0080, MPEP 2143.I.G., and (2) because such combination is just a matter of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, MPEP 2143.I.A.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gurvitch et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0293108 A1), hereafter Gurvitch, in view of Li et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0047048 A1), hereafter Li, and further in view of Natali et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0312556 A1), hereafter Natali.
Regarding Claim 10
Gurvitch in view of Li teaches the limitations of base claim 1 as set forth above. Gurvitch further teach