DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. 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.
Response to Amendment
3. In the amendment filed on 10/15/2025, claims 35 and 45 have been amended. The currently pending claims considered below are Claims 35-54.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
5. Claim(s) 35-54 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vozila et al. (US Patent 11,250,855 B1) in view of Brennan et al. (US Patent 9,542,447 B1).
As per claim 35, Vozila teaches A method for generating a conversational presentation, comprising: (see Abstract)
in response to a natural language conversational user query entered by the user relating to financial market and investment information, providing for display on a graphical user interface (GUI) viewed by the user a response to the user query and a suggested playlist including a plurality of queries (column 27 line 5 – column 29 line 23, an ambient cooperative intelligence process receives natural language input questions from users, including the client speaking a question and the financial advisor receiving the question, and renders on a display device present to the financial advisor and client responses to the question and follow up questions and suggestions based on analyzing financial information that includes portfolio and market data)
Vozila does not explicitly indicate a suggested playlist including a plurality of queries each followed by a related response.
Brennan teaches a suggested playlist including a plurality of queries each followed by a related response (column 6 lines 17 – column 7 line 24, column 7 line 54 – column 8 line 34, an index stores additional question-answer sets in knowledge graphs that are returned for display in response to user queries, the question-answer sets being prior responses that can be related to a current user-submitted natural language query)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine Vozila’s method of providing conversation and responses to a user through an ambient cooperative intelligence process with Brennan’s ability to determine and display question-answer sets from prior interactions that are related to a natural language query. This gives the user the ability to display question-answer pairs to a user in response to a received natural language input question. The motivation for doing so would be to identify the most relevant answers to user questions (column 1 lines 5-19).
As per claim 36, Vozila teaches generating of a graphical representation of financial information for presentation in the GUI as part of the response to the user query. (column 28 lines 6-12, lines 22-38, render on device)
As per claim 37, Vozila teaches the response to the user query and/or suggested playlist of queries are related to a user financial portfolio. (column 27 lines 32-58, savings)
As per claim 38, Vozila and Brennan are taught as per claim 35 above. Brennan additionally teaches displaying on the GUI the suggested playlist of queries and related responses arranged in a scrollable vertical and horizontal display, wherein the horizontal display enables viewing of plural response elements associated with a given query. (column 3 line 65 – column 4 line 27, display candidate answers and questions)
As per claim 39, Vozila teaches the related responses include predefined responses or real-time responses. (column 28 line 59 – column 29 line 4, auto-populate forms)
As per claim 40, Vozila teaches performing speech recognition and natural language processing of the user query to extract at least one of a user intent, a context, and a time period; (column 28 lines 39-58, utilize date and time information)
and providing the response to the user query based on analysis of the at least one of user intent, context, and time period. (column 28 lines 39-58, provide responses based on date)
As per claim 41, Vozila teaches providing suggestions for other queries and/or playlists that may interest the user following machine learning based analysis of the user query. (column 20 lines 26-43, machine learning)
As per claim 42, Vozila teaches in response to a user selecting a financial topic of interest, providing a query playlist retrieved or generated based on the financial topic of interest. (column 27 line 55 – column 28 line 38, provide responses and suggestions based on user question, column 27 lines 5-31, stock purchase, sale orders, interpreted as financial topic of interests)
As per claim 43, Vozila teaches the suggested playlist of queries relates to financial market data and include at least one of ESG (column 27 lines 5-31, stock purchase, sale orders)
As per claim 44, Vozila teaches the graphical representation of financial information includes financial data related to a company or business in a presentation that mimics the layout of a food nutrition label. (column 27 lines 5-31, stock purchase, sale orders, column 28 lines 6-13, list of savings plans)
As per claim 45, Vozila teaches A system comprising (see Abstract)
at least one processor configured to (column 34 lines 20-34, processor)
provide for display on a graphical user interface (GUI) viewed by a user a response to a natural language conversational user query entered by the user into the system relating to financial market and investment information and a suggested playlist including a plurality of queries (column 27 line 5 – column 29 line 23, an ambient cooperative intelligence process receives natural language input questions from users, including the client speaking a question and the financial advisor receiving the question, and renders on a display device present to the financial advisor and client responses to the question and follow up questions and suggestions based on analyzing financial information that includes portfolio and market data)
Vozila does not explicitly indicate a suggested playlist including a plurality of queries each followed by a related response.
Brennan teaches a suggested playlist including a plurality of queries each followed by a related response (column 6 lines 17 – column 7 line 24, column 7 line 54 – column 8 line 34, an index stores additional question-answer sets in knowledge graphs that are returned for display in response to user queries, the question-answer sets being prior responses that can be related to a current user-submitted natural language query)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine Vozila’s method of providing conversation and responses to a user through an ambient cooperative intelligence process with Brennan’s ability to determine and display question-answer sets from prior interactions that are related to a natural language query. This gives the user the ability to display question-answer pairs to a user in response to a received natural language input question. The motivation for doing so would be to identify the most relevant answers to user questions (column 1 lines 5-19).
As per claim 46, Vozila teaches the at least one processor is further configured to generate a graphical representation of financial information for presentation in the GUI as part of the response to the user query. (column 28 lines 6-12, lines 22-38, render on device)
As per claim 47, Vozila teaches the response to the user query and/or suggested playlist of queries are related to a user financial portfolio. (column 27 lines 32-58, savings)
As per claim 48, Vozila and Brennan are taught as per claim 45 above. Brennan additionally teaches the at least one processor is further configured to display on the GUI the suggested playlist of queries and related responses arranged in a scrollable vertical and horizontal display, wherein the horizontal display enables viewing of plural response elements associated with a given query. (column 3 line 65 – column 4 line 27, display candidate answers and questions)
As per claim 49, Vozila teaches the related responses include predefined responses or real-time responses. (column 28 line 59 – column 29 line 4, auto-populate forms)
As per claim 50, Vozila teaches the at least one processor is further configured to perform speech recognition and natural language processing of the user query to extract at least one of a user intent, a context, and a time period; (column 28 lines 39-58, utilize date and time information)
and providing the response to the user query based on analysis of the at least one of user intent, context, and time period. (column 28 lines 39-58, provide responses based on date)
As per claim 51, Vozila teaches the at least one processor is further configured to provide suggestions for other queries and/or playlists that may interest the user following machine learning based analysis of the user query. (column 20 lines 26-43, machine learning)
As per claim 52, Vozila teaches the at least one processor is further configured, in response to a user selecting a financial topic of interest, to provide a query playlist retrieved or generated based on the financial topic of interest. (column 27 line 55 – column 28 line 38, provide responses and suggestions based on user question, column 27 lines 5-31, stock purchase, sale orders, interpreted as financial topic of interests)
As per claim 53, Vozila teaches the suggested playlist of queries relates to financial market data and include at least one of ESG (environmental, social, and corporate governance), social media sentiment, social media activity, alignment with UN sustainable development goals, corporate nutrition facts, and a morality scorecard. ((column 27 lines 5-31, stock purchase, sale orders)
As per claim 54, Vozila teaches the graphical representation of financial information includes financial data related to a company or business in a presentation that mimics the layout of a food nutrition label. (column 27 lines 5-31, stock purchase, sale orders, column 28 lines 6-13, list of savings plans)
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant’s arguments, see page 5, filed 10/15/2025, with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 35-54 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 35-54 has been withdrawn.
7. Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, filed 10/15/2025, with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 35-54 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, based on the previously cited prior art of Vozila et al. (US Patent 11,250,855 B1) in view of Brennan et al. (US Patent 9,542,447 B1).
a. Examiner is entitled to give claim limitations their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. See MPEP 2111 [R-l]
Interpretation of Claims-Broadest Reasonable Interpretation
During patent examination, the pending claims must be 'given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.' Applicant always has the opportunity to amend the claims during prosecution and broad interpretation by the examiner reduces the possibility that the claim, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified. In re Prater, 162 USPQ 541,550-51 (CCPA 1969).
b. Applicant’s arguments on page 6 of the response filed 4/24/2025 is stated as the prior art of Vozila in view of Brennan does not teach “"in response to a natural language conversational user query entered by the user relating to financial market and investment information, providing for display on a graphical user interface (GUI) viewed by the user a response to the user query and a suggested playlist including a plurality of queries each followed by a related response" as disclosed in amended independent claim 35 and similarly in amended independent claim 45..
In regards to the argument that Vozila in view of Brennan does not teach “in response to a natural language conversational user query entered by the user relating to financial market and investment information, providing for display on a graphical user interface (GUI) viewed by the user a response to the user query and a suggested playlist including a plurality of queries each followed by a related response”, Examiner respectfully disagrees. As disclosed above, the prior art of Vozila in column 27 line 5 – column 29 line 23 teaches that an ambient cooperative intelligence process receives natural language input questions from users, including a client speaking a question and the financial advisor receiving the question. The ambient cooperative intelligence system receives a question as spoken by the client, which is interpreted as a user query entered by the user. Specifically, the client, or user, verbally speaks a question and the ambient cooperative intelligence process received the question for processing. A user verbally speaking the question is interpreted as a query entered by a user because the ambient cooperative intelligence process automatically detects and receives the spoken question as a query. The amended limitation merely states that the query is entered by the user into a system, but has not provided any definition on how the query is entered, whether manually or by speaking a question. In fact, the specification of the instant application in page 21 lines 19-20 states “a user may post a query such as by typing a query in a query posting box 222 or by verbally speaking the query”, similar to how the prior art of Vozila can receive a verbal question from a user/client, and the question is entered by the financial advisor utilizing the ambient cooperative intelligence process, meaning the financial advisor can be interpreted as the user entering the query. The interpretation argued by the applicant on page 7 of the response is a narrow interpretation that is not even supported by the specification of the instant application. Vozila additionally teaches in column 27 line 5 – column 29 line 23 to render on a display device present to the financial advisor and client responses to the question and follow up questions and suggestions based on analyzing financial information that includes portfolio and market data, thus teaching displaying a response to the user. As shown above, the financial advisor is interpreted as the user interacting with the ambient cooperative intelligence process, that can enter for the financial advisor a question spoken by the client, and responses are displayed on the user interface presented to the financial advisor. Thus, Vozani teaches “in response to a natural language conversational user query entered by the user relating to financial market and investment information, providing for display on a graphical user interface (GUI) viewed by the user a response to the user query, as disclosed in amended independent claims 35 and 45.
As to the argument that Vozani in view of Brennan does not teach suggested playlist including a plurality of queries each followed by a related response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Specifically, the prior art of Brennan in column 6 lines 17 – column 7 line 24 and column 7 line 54 – column 8 line 34 teaches an index storing additional question-answer sets in knowledge graphs that are returned for display in response to user queries, the question-answer sets being prior responses that can be related to a current user-submitted natural language query, which is incorporated into the prior art of Vozani that teaches a method of providing conversation and responses to a user through an ambient cooperative intelligence process to teach the limitations of independent claims 35 and 45.
In response to applicant's argument that Vozani in view of Brennan does not teaches a structured GUI in which multiple related queries are each paired with a response and presented together as a playlist to a user, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
As to the arguments directed towards the dependent claim 39 and 49, starting on page 8, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim reading “the related responses include predefined responses or real-time responses” means that the Examiner is only required to teach one or the other limitation in the “or” statement. Vozila in column 28 lines 59 – column 29 line 4 teaches auto-populating forms with predefined responses based on the conversation and questions detected by the ambient cooperative intelligence process, teaching the limitation of predefined responses.
As to the argument directed towards dependent claim 43 and 53, the response is again directed towards specific limitations disclosed in an “or” statement, when the Examiner is only required to teach one of the limitations in the “or” statement to teach the claim. Vozila, in column 38 lines 38-58 presents vacation information and relationship information presented by the client that can be presented in social media post, thus teaching social media activity.
In response to applicant's argument that Vozani in view of Brennan does not teaches dependent claim 44 and 54, that a graphical representation of financial information presented in a format mimicking a food nutrition label, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Specifically, stating that financial information be presented in the format of a food nutrition label without actually laying out how a food nutrition label would look like in the claims itself means that a broad reasonable interpretation is given to the claim, that financial information can be displayed in reports. It is unclear what aspects of a food nutrition label are to be mimicked for financial information, as the claims do not provide any details. A general presentation of financial information on a user interface would be all that is required.
While the Examiner bears the initial burden of establishing an initial case of unpatentability, once that burden has been met, the burden of coming forward with evidence or arguments demonstrating error in the Examiner's rejection shifts to the Applicant. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Mere lawyer's arguments and conclusory statements that are unsupported by factual evidence are entitled to little probative value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 DANGELINO N GORTAYO whose telephone number is (571)272-7204. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00am - 3:30pm.
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, Charles Rones can be reached at 571-272-4085. 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.
/DANGELINO N GORTAYO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2168