DETAILED ACTION
1. 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 .
2. Status of Application and Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8, 10, 11, 16 and 20 were amended and/or newly added in the Applicant’s filing on 10/16/2025.
This office action is being issued in response to the Applicant's filing on 10/16/2025.
3. Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/16/2025 has been entered.
4. Claim Interpretation
The subject matter of a properly construed claim is defined by the terms that limit its scope when given their broadest reasonable interpretation. see MPEP §2013(I)(C). Specifically, the “broadest reasonable construction ‘in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.’” See MPEP §2111, citing Phillips v. AWH Corp., 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005). However, “[t]hough understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into claim limitations that are not part of the claim.” See MPEP §2111.01, citing Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Construing claims broadly during prosecution is not unfair to the applicant, because the applicant has the opportunity to amend the claims to obtain more precise claim coverage. See MPEP §2111, citing In re Yamamoto, 222 USPQ 934, 936 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
As a general matter, grammar and the plain meaning of terms as understood by one having ordinary skill in the art used in a claim will dictate whether, and to what extent, the language limits the claim scope. See MPEP §2013(I)(C). Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. See MPEP §2013(I)(C).
As such, claim limitations that contain statement(s) such as “if, may, might, can, could” are treated as containing optional language. See MPEP §2013(I)(C). As matter of linguistic precision, optional claim elements do not narrow claim limitations, since they can always be omitted. See MPEP §2013(I)(C).
Similarly, a method step exercised or triggered upon the satisfaction of a condition, where there remains the possibility that the condition was not satisfied under the broadest reasonable interpretation, is an optional claim limitation. see MPEP §2111.04(II). As the Applicant does not address what happens should the optional claim limitations fail, Examiner assumes that nothing happens (i.e., the method stops). An alternate interpretation is that merely the claim limitations based upon the condition are not triggered or performed.
In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art. See MPEP §2143.03, citing Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2009);
Language in a method or system claim that states only the intended use or intended result, but does not result in a manipulative difference in the steps of the method claim nor a structural difference between the system claim and the prior art, fails to distinguish the claims from the prior art. In other words, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
The following types of claim language may raise a question as to its limiting effect (this list is not exhaustive):
Statements of intended use or field of use, including statements of purpose or intended use in the preamble. See MPEP §2111.02;
Clauses such as “adapted to”, “adapted for”, “wherein”, and “whereby.” See MPEP §2111.04;
Contingent limitations. See MPEP §2111.04(II);
Printed matter. See MPEP §2111.05; and
Functional language associated with a claim term. See MPEP §2181.
As such, while all claim limitations have been considered and all words in the claims have been considered in judging the patentability of the claimed invention, the following italicized, underlined and emboldened language is interpreted as not further limiting the scope of the claimed invention.
Additionally, the following italicized, underlined and emboldened language is not necessarily an exhaustive list of claim language that is interpreted as not further limiting the scope of the claimed invention. Applicant should review all claims for additional claim interpretation issues.
Claim 1 recites a method comprising:
in response to receiving transaction data indicating an update of one or more of statement value, activity value, and credit amount associated with one or more of the user's accounts, automatically updating the display of the plurality of oculus visualizations relative to the boundary of the financial oculus.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent is not met. See MPEP §2111.04(II).
Usage of the term and/or phrase “in response to receiving ....” in Claim 1 suggests that there remains the possibility that the contingent limitations are not performed as the condition(s) precedent is not met (i.e., no transaction data is received indicating an update and, therefore, no update to the display takes place). Therefore, the claim limitations based upon the condition are optional claim limitations. As a matter of linguistic precision, optional claim limitations do not narrow the scope of the invention, since they can always be omitted. See MPEP §2111.04(II).
As the Applicant does not address what happens should the optional claim limitation(s) fail, Examiner assumes that nothing happens (i.e., the method stops). An alternate interpretation is that merely the claim limitations based upon the condition are not triggered or performed.
Claim 1 recites a method comprising:
comparing the current utilization and one or more thresholds, the one or more thresholds comprising a first threshold and a second threshold, wherein the one or more thresholds are determined based on one or more of the statement value, the activity value, and the credit amount, and further based on a first output of a model trained based on the user's current or past financial health or behaviors.
Method claims are defined by the method steps being actively performed (i.e., determining thresholds and training machine-learning models), not method steps performed in the past (i.e., thresholds are determined and machine-learning models trained). Claiming method steps in the past tense can be interpreted as the method steps performed in the past are outside the scope of the claimed method. Alternatively stated, the scope of the claimed method are the active method steps which are building off a pre-existing state. The method steps performed for creation of the pre-existing state are outside the scope of the claimed invention.
Claim 5 has similar issues.
Claim 1 recites a method comprising:
in accordance with a determination that the current utilization is above the first threshold:
determining a suggested payment value for meeting the first threshold; and
displaying a suggestion oculus visualization indicating the suggested payment value within the boundary of the financial oculus;
in accordance with a determination that the current utilization is below the second threshold:
forgoing determining the suggested payment value; and
forgoing displaying the suggestion oculus visualization;
The Courts have stated that where claim limitations recite a series of alternative limitations, the prior art need only disclose one of the alternatives to anticipate. See MPEP §2131, citing Brown v. 3M, 60 USPQ2d 1375, 1377-78 (Fed. Cir. 2001). As such, prior art utilized to reject one alternative limitation would also reject all other alternative limitations, regardless of whether the prior art addressed the other alternative limitations.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent is not met. See MPEP §2111.04(II).
Usage of the term and/or phrase “in accordance with a determination that …” in Claim 1 suggests that there remains the possibility that the contingent limitations are not performed as the condition(s) precedent is not met. For example, a determination is made that the current utilization is below the first threshold and above the second threshold. Therefore, the claim limitations based upon the condition are optional claim limitations. As a matter of linguistic precision, optional claim limitations do not narrow the scope of the invention, since they can always be omitted. See MPEP §2111.04(II).
As the Applicant does not address what happens should the optional claim limitation(s) fail, Examiner assumes that nothing happens (i.e., the method stops). An alternate interpretation is that merely the claim limitations based upon the condition are not triggered or performed.
Claim 1 recites a method comprising:
displaying, on a graphical user interface (GUI), at a first amount of time before a first payment due date, one or more first messages comprising a reminder for a first payment.
Claim elements pertain to nonfunctional descriptive material and are not functionally involved in the steps recited. Thus, this descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. See MPEP §2111.05 (III).
Claim 1 recites a method comprising:
transmitting user history to train the one or more machine-learning models, the user history comprising the statement value, the activity value, the credit amount, and the determination that the first payment is late;
Method claims are defined by the method steps being actively performed (i.e., training a machine-learning model), not method steps possibly performed in the future (i.e., to train a machine learning model). Claiming method steps in the future tense can be interpreted as the method steps possibly performed in the future are outside the scope of the claimed method.
Additionally, as the user history is not actively utilized to actively train the machine-learning model, the user history is nonfunctional descriptive material and is not functionally involved in the steps recited. Thus, this descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. See MPEP §2111.05 (III).
Claim 1 recites a method comprising:
determining a first probability associated with a plurality of users and further associated with the first amount of time, wherein the plurality of users shares common attributes with the user;
The claim limitation defines the users that utilize the system (i.e., the plurality of users share a common attribute with the user) not the method step being performed (i.e., determining a first probability that a user shares a common attribute with the user).
Claim 1 recites a method comprising:
determining, using a second output of the one or more machine-learning models, the second amount of time such that a second probability associated with the plurality of users and further associated with the second amount of time is greater than the first probability;
The claim limitation defines the second amount of time (i.e., the second amount of is associated with associated with the plurality of users and further associated with the second amount of time is greater than the first probability) not the method step being performed (i.e., determining a second probability associated with the plurality of users and associated with the second amount of time is greater than the first probability).
Claim 3 recites a method wherein:
the one or more messages comprise a message including the one or more metrics, a message including the one or more user-selected financial goals, a message including a smart spot payment amount, a message indicating deviation away from or towards the one or more user-selected financial goals, or a personalized message providing tips or strategies.
Claim elements pertain to nonfunctional descriptive material and are not functionally involved in the steps recited. Thus, this descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. See MPEP §2111.05 (III).
Claim 4 has similar issues.
5. 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
STEP 1
The claimed invention falls within one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture and composition of matter). See MPEP §2106.03.
STEP 2A – PRONG ONE
The claim(s) recite(s) a method comprising:
determining one or more metrics indicative of the user's financial health, wherein the one or more metrics are determined based on the user's current or past financial health or behaviors;
displaying a financial oculus;
displaying, within a boundary of the financial oculus, one or more oculus visualizations, wherein;
the one or more oculus visualizations correspond to the one or more metrics, and
a first oculus visualization associated with a first value is displayed within a boundary of a second oculus visualization associated with a second value, the first value smaller than the second value;
in response to receiving transaction data indicating an update of one or more of statement value, activity value, and credit amount associated with one or more of the user's accounts, automatically updating the display of the plurality of oculus visualizations relative to the boundary of the financial oculus;
determining a user's current utilization;
comparing the current utilization and one or more thresholds, the one or more thresholds comprising a first threshold and a second threshold, wherein the one or more thresholds are determined based on one or more of the statement value, the activity value, and the credit amount, and further based on a first output of one or more … models [developed] based on the user's current or past financial health or behaviors;
in accordance with a determination that the current utilization is above the first threshold:
determining a suggested payment value for meeting the first threshold; and
displaying a suggestion oculus visualization indicating the suggested payment value within the boundary of the financial oculus;
in accordance with a determination that the current utilization is below the second threshold:
forgoing determining the suggested payment value; and
forgoing displaying the suggestion oculus visualization;
receiving input from the user that sets or makes adjustments to one or more user- selected financial goals, the input directed toward the one or more oculus visualizations;
displaying … at a first amount of time before a first payment due date, one or more first messages comprising a reminder for a first payment;
determining that the first payment is late based on the first payment due date;
transmitting user history …, the user history comprising the statement value, the activity value, the credit amount, and the determination that the first payment is late;
determining a second amount of time before a second due date for determining and displaying one or more second messages comprising a reminder for a second payment, the determining the second amount of time comprising:
determining a first probability associated with a plurality of users and further associated with the first amount of time, wherein the plurality of users shares common attributes with the user; and
determining, using a second output of the one or more … models, the second amount of time such that a second probability associated with the plurality of users and further associated with the second amount of time is greater than the first probability; and
displaying, … , at the second amount of time before the second payment due date, the one or more second messages comprising the reminder for the second payment.
These limitations, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a series of steps instructing how to improve a user’s financial health which is a fundamental economic practice, a sub-category of certain method(s) of organizing human activity, an enumerated grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A).
These limitations, as drafted, recite a method that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a series of steps instructing how to process and display financial metrics, a series of steps that can be practically performed in the human mind (e.g., observations, evaluations, judgments and opinions) which are mental process, a second enumerated grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Examiner notes that “’collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,’ where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind” is a mental process. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) citing Electric Power Group v. Alstom, SA. (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Additionally, these limitations, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a series of steps instructing a person how to pay off their debts which qualifies as managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, a subcategory of certain methods of organizing human activity, an enumerated grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C).
Examiner notes that “budgeting” is a court-provided example of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. see MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) citing Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA) (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Accordingly, the claimed invention recites an abstract idea.
STEP 2A – PRONG TWO
The claimed invention recites additional elements (i.e., computer elements) of a machine-learning model (Claim(s) 1) and graphical user interface (Claim(s) 1).
The claimed invention does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception because the claims do not provide improvements to another technology or technical field; improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; are not applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition; are not applying the judicial exception with or by use of a particular machine; are not effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and are not applying the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP §2106.04(d).
The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP §2106.05(f). Alternately, the additional elements amount to no more than generally linking the exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §2106.05(h). Accordingly, these additional element(s), when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application.
STEP 2B
Upon reconsideration of the indicia noted under Step 2A in concert with the Step 2B considerations, the additional claim element(s) amounts to (i) adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, (ii) adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and/or (iii) generally linking the use of judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §2106.07(a)(II). The same analysis applies in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claim does not provide an inventive concept significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
DEPENDENT CLAIMS
No additional computer components other than those found in the respective independent claims is recited, thus it is presumed that the claim is further utilizing the same generically recited computer.
As such, the dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the judicial exception or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination.
Accordingly, the dependent claim(s) are also not patent eligible.
Appropriate correction is requested.
6. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites a method comprising:
transmitting user history to train the one or more machine-learning models, the user history comprising the statement value, the activity value, the credit amount, and the determination that the first payment is late.
However, the specification does not recite training (i.e., in the present or future) the machine-learning models. The specification recites that the machine-learning models were trained (i.e., in the past). See specification, para. 74 and 98.
Claim 5 recites a method wherein:
the one or more machine-learning models are trained further based on seasonality, historical and current spending, or a combination thereof.
However, the specification does not recite that the machine-learning models are trained based on seasonality, historical and current spending, or a combination thereof. The specification recites that trained machine-learning models generate recommendations (i.e., output) based on seasonality, historical and current spending, or a combination thereof. See specification, para. 74-75.
Appropriate correction is requested.
7. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites a method comprising:
displaying, within a boundary of the financial oculus, one or more oculus visualizations, wherein:
the one or more oculus visualizations correspond to the one or more metrics, and a first oculus visualization associated with a first value is displayed within a boundary of a second oculus visualization associated with a second value, the first value smaller than the second value;
Is there one or more oculus visualizations (i.e., under the broadest reasonable interpretation there is one visualizations), or are there, at least, two visualizations (i.e., a first and second visualization)?
Claim 1 recites a method comprising:
comparing the current utilization and one or more thresholds, the one or more thresholds comprising a first threshold and a second threshold, wherein the one or more thresholds are determined based on one or more of the statement value, the activity value, and the credit amount, and further based on a first output of a model trained based on the user's current or past financial health or behaviors.
Is there one or more thresholds (i.e., under the broadest reasonable interpretation there is one threshold), or are there, at least, two thresholds (i.e., the one threshold is being defined as two thresholds which means there cannot be one threshold)?
Claim 1 recites a method comprising:
receiving input from the user that sets or makes adjustments to one or more user-selected financial goals, the input directed to the one or more oculus visualizations;
What does input “directed to the one or more oculus visualizations” mean? Does this mean that the user is reading information off the oculus visualization and the user’s response is directed to the information they have read off the oculus visualization? The oculus visualization is the motivation for the input?
Or does this mean that the computer system is routing (i.e., directing) the input to the oculus visualization? Examiner notes that the claim, as written, does not recite that the oculus visualization displays the financial goals either prior to or after selection, nor alteration of the displayed data in the oculus visualization based upon the user selection.
Claim 1 recites a method comprising:
determining a second amount of time before a second payment due date for determining and displaying one or more second messages comprising a reminder for a second payment, the determining the second amount of time comprising:
determining a first probability associated with a plurality of users and further associated with the first amount of time, wherein the plurality of users shares common attributes with the user, and
determining, using a second output of the one or more machine-learning models, the second amount of time such that a second probability associated with the plurality of users and further associated with the second amount of time is greater than the first probability; and
displaying, on the GUI, at the second amount of time before the second payment due date, the one or more second messages comprising the reminder for the second payment.
Regarding the second amount of time, what function is the second amount of time controlling? Is the second amount of controlling when the second message is displayed (e.g., display the second message one month before the due date)?
Because, as written, the second amount of time appears to be “for determining.” What does that mean? What is being determined? Determining a second amount of time for determining a second amount of time?
Appropriate correction is requested.
8.Claim Rejections - 35 USC §103
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 10-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wasser ‘646 (US Patent 9,830,646) in view of in view of Artemiw (US PG Pub. 2020/0302425).
Regarding Claim 1, Wasser ‘646 discloses a method comprising:
determining one or more metrics indicative of the user’s financial health (credit score), wherein the one or more metrics are determined based on the user’s current or past financial health or behaviors. (see col. 5, line 27-col. 7, line 54);
displaying a financial graphic element. (see fig. 2A);
displaying, within a boundary of the financial graphic element (fig. 2A), one or more financial element visualizations (fig. 2A, element 201), wherein:
the one or more graphic element visualizations (fig. 2A, element 201) correspond to the one or more metrics (credit score), and a first graphic element visualization (fig. 2A, element 206) associated with a first value (credit score goal of 700) is displayed within a boundary of a second graphic element visualization (fig. 2A, element 201) associated with a second value (current credit score of 750), the first value smaller (700) than the second value (750);
in response to receiving transaction data indicating an update of one or more of statement value, activity value, and credit amount (amount of available credit) associated with one or more of the user's accounts, automatically updating the display of the plurality of oculus visualizations relative to the boundary of the financial oculus. (see col. 5, line 43-col. 7, line 31);
determining a user’s current utilization (credit usage or credit account balance). (see col. 7, lines 15-31 and col. 11, lines 17-34);
determining one or more thresholds (credit score thresholds), the one or more thresholds comprising a first threshold and a second threshold (multiple credit score goals). (see abstract; col. 8, lines 6-28);
receiving input from the user that sets or makes adjustments to one or more user- selected financial goals (credit score goals), the input directed to the one or more financial visualizations. (see fig. 3; col. 4, lines 27-50);
determining one or more relationships between the one or more metrics and the one or more user-selected financial goals (to improve credit score toward credit score goal). (see col. 15, line 60-col.16, line 53);
displaying, on a graphical user interface, at a first amount of time, one or more first messages. (see fig. 6B-6E; col. 15, line 46-col. 16, line 35);
determining that the first payment is late based on the first payment due date. (see col. 11, lines 29-34).
Wasser ‘646 does not explicitly teach a method wherein the graphic element is an oculus (i.e., a circle), although Wasser ‘646 does recite that a user interface consisting of an oculus (circular rotational user interfaces) is possible. (see col. 6, lines 53-63).
Wasser ‘646 does not explicitly teach a method comprising in accordance with a determination that the current utilization is below the second threshold: forgoing determining the suggested payment value; and forgoing displaying the suggestion oculus visualization.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to eliminate method steps, since it has been held that mere omission of an element and its function in a combination, without more, involves only routine skill in the art. see MPEP §2144.04 (II).
Wasser ‘646 does not teach a method comprising comparing the current utilization and one or more thresholds, wherein the one or more thresholds are determined based on one or more of the statement value, the activity value, and the credit amount, and further based on a first output of one or more machine-learning models trained based on the user's current or past financial health or behaviors; in accordance with a determination that the current utilization is above the first threshold: determining a suggested payment value for meeting the first threshold; and displaying a suggestion oculus visualization indicating the suggested payment value within the boundary of the financial oculus; wherein the first message comprises a reminder for a first payment; transmitting user history to train the one or more machine-learning models, the user history comprising the statement value, the activity value, the credit amount, and the determination that the first payment is late; determining a second amount of time before a second payment due date for determining and displaying one or more second messages comprising a reminder for a second payment, the determining the second amount of time comprising: determining a first probability associated with a plurality of users and further associated with the first amount of time, wherein the plurality of users shares common attributes with the user, and determining, using a second output of the one or more machine-learning models, the second amount of time such that a second probability associated with the plurality of users and further associated with the second amount of time is greater than the first probability; and isplaying, on the GUI, at the second amount of time before the second payment due date, the one or more second messages comprising the reminder for the second payment.
Artemiw discloses a method comprising:
determining one or more metrics (total balance) indicative of the user’s health, wherein on or more metrics are determined based on the user’s current or past financial health (customer’s statement history) or behaviors. (see fig. 2; para. 74);
displaying a financial oculus. (see fig. 2);
displaying, within the boundary of the financial oculus, one or more oculus visualizations (see fig. 2), wherein:
the one or more oculus visualizations correspond to one or more metrics (total balance). (see fig. 2); and
a first oculus visualization associated with a first value (new purchases) and a second oculus visualization associated with a second value (total balance), the first value (new purchases) being smaller than the second value (total balance). (see fig. 2);
in response to receiving transaction data indicating an update of one or more of statement value, activity value (new charges and new payments), and credit amount associated with one or more of the user's accounts, automatically updating the display of the plurality of oculus visualizations relative to the boundary of the financial oculus. (see fig. 2; para. 32 and 80);
determining a user’s current utilization (current credit utilization). (see para. 43);
comparing the current utilization and one or more thresholds, the one or more thresholds comprising a first threshold and a second threshold. (see para. 44-45);
wherein one or more parameters are determined based on one or more of statement value, the activity level (transaction history), and the credit amount (current balance), and further based on a first output of one or more machine-learning models trained based on the user's current or past financial health or behaviors. (see para. 53-60).
in accordance with a determination that the current utilization is above the first threshold (first threshold of 66%) (see para. 43):
determining a suggested payment value (payment plan) for meeting the first threshold (first threshold of 66%). (see para. 43); and
displaying a suggestion graphic element visualization indicating the suggested payment value within the boundary of the financial graphic element. (see para. 46);
displaying, on a graphic user interface (GUI), at a first amount of time before a first payment due date (of six payment plan due dates), one or more first messages comprising a reminder of a first payment. (see para. 43-51),
transmitting user history. (see para. 25-28);
determining a second amount of time before a second payment date (of six payment plan due dates) for determining and displaying one or more second messages comprising a reminder for a second payment (see para. 43-51), the determining the second amount of time comprising:
determining a first probability (likelihood of increased financial health) associated with a plurality of users and further associated with the first amount of time, wherein the plurality of users share common attributes with the user (similar customers). (see para. 75-76); and
determining, using a second output of the one or more machine-learning models, the second amount of time such that second probability (best likelihood of increased financial health) and further associated with the second amount of time is greater (better) than the first probability (likelihood). (see para. 75-76); and
displaying, one the GUI, at the second amount of time before the second payment due date, the one or more second messages (statement) comprising the reminder of the second payment (remaining in the payment plan). (see par. 48).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Wasser ‘646 by incorporating the ability to suggest and enact payment amounts to outstanding debts, as disclosed by Artemiw, thereby enabling the payment amounts to enable improvement of credit scores, as suggested by Wasser ‘646.
Regarding Claim 2, Wasser ‘646 discloses a method wherein:
the one or more metrics include one or more of a credit score. (see col. 5, line 27-col. 7, line 54); or
the one or more user-selected financial goals include one or more of improving credit score or achieving an aspirational credit amount (see fig. 3; col. 4, lines 27-50)
Regarding Claim 3, Wasser ‘646 discloses a method wherein:
the one or more messages comprise a message including the one or more metrics (credit score of 550), a message including the one or more user-selected financial goals (credit score goal of 750), a message indicating deviation away from or towards the one or more user-selected financial goals (you are now 200 points away from your goal of 750), or a personalized message providing tips or strategies (discover ways to reach your goal). (see fig. 6D).
Wasser ‘646 does not teach a method wherein the one or more messages comprise a messaging include the smart spot payment amount.
Artemiw discloses a method comprising wherein the one or more messages comprise a messaging include the smart spot payment amount. (see para. 43-46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wasser ‘646 and Artemiw to incorporate determination of a smart payment amount, as disclosed by Artemiw, thereby suggesting payment amounts to advance the user toward their financial goals.
Regarding Claim 4, such claim recites substantially similar limitations as claimed in previously rejected claims and, therefore, would have been obvious based upon previously rejected claims.
Regarding Claim 5, Wasser ‘646 does not teach a method wherein the one or more machine-learning models are trained further based on seasonality, historical and current spending, or a combination thereof.
Artemiw discloses a method wherein the one or more machine-learning models are trained further based on seasonality, historical and current spending, or a combination thereof. (see para. 53-57).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wasser ‘646 and Artemiw to incorporate a model trained on past data, as disclosed by Artemiw, thereby obtaining the inherent benefits in utilization of a machine-learning model, specifically efficiently finding patterns within past financial data.
Regarding Claim 6, Wasser ‘646 does not each a method comprising using the one or more machine-learning model to determine a segmentation value; determining a pay off amount based on a statement balance and average monthly activity of the user; comparing the pay off amount and the segmentation value; or determining a smart spot payment amount based on the comparison of the pay off amount and the segmentation value, wherein the one or more messages comprise a message including the smart spot payment amount.
Artemiw discloses a method comprising:
using the model to determine a segmentation value (likelihood of completion, likelihood of selecting initial payment amount, best financial outcome). (see para. 56-57 and 75-76);
determining a pay off amount (payment) based on a statement balance (current balance) and average monthly activity of the user (transaction history). (see para. 53);
comparing the pay off amount and the segmentation value. (see para. 53-57); and
determining a smart spot payment amount based on the comparison of the pay off amount (payment) and the segmentation value (likelihood of completion, likelihood of selecting initial payment amount), wherein the one or more messages comprise a message including the smart spot payment amount. (see para. 53-57 and 75-76).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wasser ‘646 and Artemiw to incorporate a model to determine payment amounts, as disclosed by Artemiw, thereby obtaining the inherent benefits in utilization of a model to perform said calculations.
Regarding Claim 7, Wasser ‘646 discloses a method wherein one or more properties of the one or more oculus visualizations (circular rotational user interfaces) are indicative of or related to the one or more metrics or the one or more user-selected financial goals. (see fig 2A; col. 6, lines 53-63).
Regarding Claim 8, Wasser ‘646 discloses a method comprising:
receiving an input from the user that adjusts the one the one or more oculus visualizations (circular rotational user interfaces), wherein a location of the input on the one or more oculus visualizations represents a credit score threshold corresponding to the statement value, the activity value, the credit amount, or the suggested payment value. (see col. 2, lines 20-61);
determining a suggestion (customized advice) based on the input and an output (customized advice) of the model based on the user’s current or past financial behaviors. (see col. 4, lines 27-50); and
displaying the suggestion on the graphical user interface. (see col. 4, lines 27-50).
Wasser ‘646 does not explicitly teach a method wherein the input is a second input, the suggestion is a second suggestion or the output is a third output.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Wasser ‘646 by duplicating claim elements contained in Wasser ‘646 (e.g., the first input) to create additional claim elements (e.g., a second input) wherein each additional claim element would serve the same function as the original claim element. In the combination each element, original element and additional element, would merely have performed the same function as it did previously, and one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. see MPEP §2144.04 (VI)(B).
Wasser ‘646 does not teach a method wherein the second input represents a payment amount.
Artemiw discloses a method comprising receiving an input (selection) from the user that adjusts (animates) the one the one or more oculus visualizations (user interfaces), wherein a location of the input on the one or more oculus visualizations represents a payment amount (payment plan option) corresponding to the statement value, the activity value, the credit amount, or the suggested payment value. (see para. 72).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wasser ‘646 and Artemiw to enable selection of a payment amount , as disclosed by Artemiw, thereby enabling the user a choice of payment amount.
Regarding Claim 10, Wasser ‘646 discloses a method wherein the plurality of oculus visualizations includes:
a credit oculus visualization indicating the credit amount (credit score). (see fig. 2A).
Wasser ‘646 does not teach a statement oculus visualization indicating the statement value; a activity oculus indicative the activity value; or wherein portions of the at least two of the statement oculus visualization, the activity oculus visualization, or the credit oculus visualization are tangential each other (i.e., touching).
Artemiw discloses a method wherein the plurality of oculus visualizations includes:
a statement oculus visualization indicating the statement value (statement balance). (see fig. 2 and 7).;
an activity oculus indicative the activity value (new purchases). (see fig. 2 and 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wasser ‘646 and Artemiw to have a plurality of financial oculus displaying a plurality of information, as disclosed by Artemiw, thereby enabling communication of all needed information to the user.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention was made to allow for any spacing of the graphic elements that the inventor desired, such as the oculuses being tangential (i.e., touching) or spaced apart. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding Claim 11, Wasser ‘646 discloses a method comprising:
selecting a personalized message based on the user’s current or past financial health (current credit score) or behaviors and the one or more user-selected financial goals (goal credit score), wherein the one or more messages displayed to the user comprises the personalized message. (see fig. 6D).
Regarding Claim 12, Wasser ‘646 discloses a method wherein:
selecting the personalized message is performed in response to a risk-related recent trigger event (declining credit score). (see fig. 6D).
Regarding Claim 13, Wasser ‘646 discloses a method wherein:
the risk-related recent trigger event comprises one or more of: a threshold number of late payments made, a shift in utilization rate, a shift in balance building, meeting a certain risk level (credit-related events or macroeconomic event), or meeting a certain level of product engagement. (see col. 13, line 53-col. 15, line 14).
Regarding Claim 14, Wasser ‘646 discloses a method wherein:
the selected personalized message is a message related to encouraging the user to engage in positive financial behaviors (discovers ways to reach your goal). (see fig. 6D).
Regarding Claim 15, Wasser ‘646 does not teach a method comprising wherein the selected personalized message is a message related to discouraging the user from engaging in negative financial behaviors.
Artemiw discloses a method comprising wherein the selected personalized message is a message related to discouraging (via negative reinforcement) the user from engaging in negative financial behaviors. (see para. 72).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wasser ‘646 and Artemiw to incorporate messages to discourage negative financial behaviors, as disclosed by Artemiw, thereby improving the financial health of the accountholder.
Regarding Claim 16, Wasser ‘646 discloses a method comprising:
selecting a personalized message (alert) based on the user’s interaction with the graphical user interface (fig. 4), wherein the one or more messages displayed to the user comprises the personalized message. (see fig. 4 and 6D; col. 13, lines 4-53).
Regarding Claim 17, Wasser ‘646 discloses a method comprising:
determining one or more performance metrics (credit score) associated with the user’s interaction with the graphical user interface (fig. 4) in response to the displaying the one or more messages, wherein the personalized message (alert) is selected based on the one or more performance metrics (credit score). (see fig. 4 and 6D; col. 13, lines 4-53).
Regarding Claim 18, Wasser ‘646 discloses a method comprising:
creating a new message (alert) or modifying the one or more first messages based on the one or more performance metrics (credit score). (see fig. 4 and 6D; col. 13, lines 4-53).
Regarding Claim 19, Wasser ‘646 discloses a method comprising:
periodically checking whether the one or more user-selected financial goals have changed (see col. 20, line 56-col. 21, line 14); and
allowing the user to change (adjust his/her goals) or maintain the one or more user-selected financial goals. (see fig. 6F; col. 16, lines 36-53).
Regarding Claim 20, Wasser ‘646 does not teach a method wherein the model determines the one or more messages based on the user’s current or past financial health or behaviors.
Artemiw discloses a method wherein the one or more machine-learning models determine the one or more first messages based on the user’s current or past financial health or behaviors. (see para. 53-57).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wasser ‘646 and Artemiw to incorporate a model, as disclosed by Artemiw, thereby obtaining the inherent benefits in utilization of a machine-learning model, specifically efficiently finding patterns within the financial data.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wasser ‘646 and Artemiw, as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Kingston (US PG Pub. 2014/0358799).
Regarding Claim 9, Wasser ‘646 does not teach a method comprising displaying a countdown visualization, wherein one or more properties of the countdown visualization are indicative of an urgency of a payment due.
Kingston discloses a method comprising displaying a countdown visualization (due date alert), wherein one or more properties (color) of the countdown visualization are indicative of an urgency (importance) of a payment due.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wasser ‘646 and Artemiw to incorporate a countdown visualization of a payment due date, as disclosed by Kingston, thereby impressing upon the accountholder the importance of making payments on due dates to improve their financial health.
9. Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
§101 Rejection
Step 2A Prong One
Applicant argues that the claimed invention does not recite a mental process, as “the claim limitations cannot be performed in the human mind at least because the human mind is not equipped to perform the claimed steps.” See Arguments, p. 8.
Specifically, Applicant argues:
Claim 1 recites claim limitations that cannot practically be performed in the human mind at least because the human mind is not equipped to perform the claimed steps. For example, using real-time information from different sources (e.g., from different bank accounts in different formats), presenting in real-time the information in a unified format (e.g., with the claimed oculus), and automatically updating the information presentation and generating messages according to the real-time information, for providing a user more helpful suggestions to improve financial health cannot be practically performed in the human mind. As another example, the human mind cannot practically perform the claimed model's analysis of the user's payment history for determining that generating and displaying a message at a certain time would allow a user to act in real-time for reducing risk of missing a payment and improving the user's financial health. (See published application at [0098] - [0099] and [0106] - [0110].) As another example, the claimed model is additionally used to determine a first threshold for determining a suggested payment value for meeting the first threshold and uses historical data to analyze and detect current account conditions and to determine actions, which can be taken in real-time, for improving the detected conditions, which cannot be practically performed by the human mind. See Arguments, pp. 8-9.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
A mental process includes processes that can be performed in the human mind (e.g., observations, evaluations, judgments and opinions). See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III). Mental processes include processes that would require “the use of a physical aid, such as pen and paper.” See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B). And processes that utilize a computer. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C).
Claims that recite limitations “that cannot practically be performed in the human mind” are not mental processes. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A). For example, a limitation that cannot be practically performed in the human mind is “detecting suspicious activity by using network monitors and analyzing network packets” and “rendering a halftone image of a digital image by comparing, pixel by pixel, the digital image against a blue noise mask, where the method required the manipulation of computer data structures (e.g., the pixels of a digital image and a two-dimensional array known as a mask) and the output of a modified computer data structure.” See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A). The examples provided require a computer. A computer is inherent to the underlying process (e.g., there is no network traffic, data packets or pixels without a computer). This is not the case with the claimed invention.
A human being (e.g., a financial advisor) using real-time information from different sources (e.g., from different bank accounts in different formats) can present in real-time the information in a unified format (e.g., a note, a report or a verbal communication). A human being (e.g., a financial advisor) can update the information presentation and generate messages according to the real-time information, providing a user (e.g., a client) more helpful suggestions to improve their financial health.
A human being (e.g., a financial advisor) can perform the claimed model's analysis (e.g., in their head, or using pen and paper) of the user's payment history for determining that generating and display a message (e.g., a note or report) at a certain time (e.g., 10 days before the payment due date) that would allow a user to act in real-time for reducing risk of missing a payment and improving the user's financial health.
A human being (e.g., a financial advisor) can determine a first threshold for determining a suggested payment value for meeting the first threshold, and use historical data to analyze and detect current account conditions and to determine actions, which can be taken in real-time, would improve the detected conditions.
As such, the argued processes are processes that can practically be performed in the human mind.
Applicant further argues:
By using an output of a model trained based on user history and displaying the suggestion oculus visualization with the other oculus visualizations within the financial oculus, the electronic device can more quickly and efficiently display the differences between the financial information with respect to the suggested payment value, for a user to more easily understand. Without the claimed model and oculus visualizations, attempting to perform these steps with the human mind to understand these differences may require manual retrieval and manual analysis of the history, requiring more navigation, power, user burden, errors, negatively impacting the user's financial health (e.g., not practical). See Arguments, p. 9.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
While benefits (e.g., reduced manual retrieval and manual analysis of the history, reduced user burden, reduced errors) may be obtained through computerization of the abstract idea, computerization, in itself, does not make an abstract idea patent eligible.
On this point, FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric System, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016) stated:
At the same time, we note that, in viewing the facts in FairWarning's favor, the inability for the human mind to perform each claim step does not alone confer patentability. As we have explained, “the fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.” Bancorp Servs., 687 F.3d at 1278. See FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric System, Inc., 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016) - emphasis added.
FairWarning appears to argue that, under a correct construction, the district court would have understood the term audit log data to “exist[] in the computer environment after at least one of [the] transactions or activities … are executed in the computer environment by an authorized user.” Id. at 30 (emphases omitted). The implication of this construction, FairWarning argues, would be that “the ′500 patent is necessarily rooted in computer technology.” Id. But this is the same argument we dismissed above, cloaked as claim construction. Simply requiring computer implementation of an otherwise abstract-idea process, as in FairWarning would require of the claim, does not make the claims patent eligible. See FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric System, Inc., 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016) – emphasis added.
Similar to FairWarning, the claimed invention appears to be "merely implement[ing] an old practice in a new environment" by updating the practice to a new computerized environment, and thus is patent-ineligible subject matter. See FairWarning, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1269 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Additionally, Examiner notes that MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) recites:
In evaluating whether a claim that requires a computer recites a mental process, examiners should carefully consider the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification. For instance, examiners should review the specification to determine if the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. In these situations, the claim is considered to recite a mental process.
The claimed invention recites a mental process even though the claimed invention recites that the mental process is being performed on a computer. The claims merely recite that the “concept is performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept.”
Examiner notes that claimed invention recites an abstract idea that can be classified in two additional enumerated groupings of abstract ideas – (1) a fundamental economic practice and (2) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Two enumerated groupings of abstract ideas which are not tied to functions “that can be practically performed in the human mind.”
Step 2B Prong Two
Applicant argues that the claimed invention recites “a practical application” and, as such, satisfies Step 2A Prong Two of the §101 Guidelines. See Arguments, p. 10.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding Step 2A Prong Two of the §101 Guidelines, MPEP §2106.04(d) recites:
Limitations the courts have found indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application include:
An improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP §2106.04(d)(2);
Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP §2106.05(b);
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 106.05(c); and
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP §2106.05(e).
Neither the claims nor the specification indicates that the additional elements (i.e., computer elements) have integrated the abstract idea into a practical application under any of the five categories for indicating a practical integration.
Applicant further argues:
Claim 1 includes features that are integrated into practical applications, which render the claim eligible. Improving financial health may be difficult for many users due to deficiencies of traditional financial applications and the overwhelming number of factors impacting financial health. (See published application, [0003]-[0008].) Claim 1 is integrated into practical applications by addressing these deficiencies and reducing difficulties experienced by users seeking to improve financial health. Also, the added features for addressing these deficiencies cannot be practically performed by the human mind. See Arguments, p. 10 – emphasis added.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, the U.S. Court of Appeals stated:
As an initial matter, it is true that the claims here are similar to the claims in the cases discussed above in the sense that the claims involve both a computer and the Internet. But these claims stand apart because they do not merely recite the performance of some business practice known from the pre-Internet world along with the requirement to perform it on the Internet. Instead, the claimed solution is necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks. See DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) – emphasis added.
In the instant case, the problem that the claimed invention is designed to overcome, difficulties in improving users’ financial health, is not a problem specifically arising from the realm of computers. This problem is a standard business problem that exists outside the realm of computers and existed before the age of computers.
Additionally, the court in Electric Power Group LLC v. Alstom SA (Fed. Cir. 2016) stated:
The claims here are unlike the claims in Enfish. There, we relied on the distinction made in Alice between, on one hand, computer-functionality improvements and, on the other, uses of existing computers as tools in aid of processes focused on “abstract ideas” (in Alice, as in so many other § 101 cases, the abstract ideas being the creation and manipulation of legal obligations such as contracts involved in fundamental economic practices). Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335-36; see Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358-59. That distinction, the Supreme Court recognized, has common-sense force even if it may present line-drawing challenges because of the programmable nature of ordinary existing computers. In Enfish, we applied the distinction to reject the § 101 challenge at stage one because the claims at issue focused not on asserted advances in uses to which existing computer capabilities could be put, but on a specific improvement—a particular database technique—in how computers could carry out one of their basic functions of storage and retrieval of data. Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335-36; see Bascom, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 11687, 2016 WL 3514158, at *5; cf. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2360 (noting basic storage function of generic computer). The present case is different: the focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools. see Electric Power Group LLC v. Alstom SA, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016) – emphasis added.
The claimed invention is not an improvement to computer technology or computer functionality. Rather, the claimed invention is applying a computer’s existing capabilities to implement a particular abstract idea. As in Electric Power Group, the focus of the claimed invention is not on an improvement in computers as tools but on improving an abstract idea (i.e., improving a user’s financial health) that uses computers as tools.
Applicant further argues:
Furthermore, the claimed first and second messages are not conventional or routine, as traditional financial applications do not provide dynamically generated, personalized payment recommendations integrated into interactive visualizations. (See published application, [0004]- [0006].) Claim 1 provides a specific improvement to the user experience and the functioning of the computer by enabling users to visualize and select payment options that are tailored to unique financial behavior, rather than presenting static or generic payment options as in traditional systems. (See published application, [0004]-[0006], [0063]-[0068].) The claimed messages are displayed and visualization and payment scenarios are updated in real-time (also cannot practically performed by the human mind), providing immediate feedback and actionable insights to the user, which are important for addressing time-sensitive financial needs. See Arguments, p. 12 – emphasis added.
Examiner is uncertain what the Applicant is arguing.
Is the Applicant arguing that generation and transmission of a first and second message is not “well-understood, routine, conventional activity previously known to the industry” and, as such, satisfies Step 2B? Because generation and transmission of a first and second message is a well-understood, routine and conventional computerized activity.
Examiner notes that Applicant specifies that the function is not conventional or routine in “traditional financial applications.” Perhaps Applicant is arguing that the functions are not well-understood, routine and conventional in a narrower subset of computer technology, such as financial computer applications.
However, that would mean that claimed invention is merely applying the standard and conventional capabilities of existing computer technology to a particular field of use (i.e., financial computer technology) which undercuts the Applicant’s previous argument (under Step 2A Prong Two) that the claimed invention is improving a computer, computer functionality or other technology.
Additionally, even if the function is not conventional or routine in traditional financial applications, that does not mean that the function is not conventional or routine in financial applications, outside those deemed to be traditional financial applications.
Applicant further argues:
The Office Action argues that "the specification does not provide any evidence that the claimed invention results in an improvement to the functioning of a computer." (See Office Action, 24-25.) Applicant respectfully refers to the Memo, which states the specification "does not need to explicitly set forth the improvement," but must "describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art." (See Memo, 4.)
Applicant respectfully contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have understood the specification discloses practical integrations involving a graphical user interface (GUI) and visualizations, similar to Core Wireless and consistent with the Office Action's reasoning that the claims in Core Wireless are eligible. (See Office Action, 24.) See Arguments, p. 12.
The Examiner agrees that the specification "does not need to explicitly set forth the improvement."
However, the Examiner disagrees “that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have understood the specification discloses practical integrations involving a graphical user interface (GUI) and visualizations.”
Examiner assumes that the Applicant is asserting that the practical integration of the abstract idea is demonstrated by an improvement in the functioning of a computer (i.e., visualization of data on a computer), or an improvement to other technology (i.e., a graphic user interface) or technical field.
MPEP §2106.05(a) recites:
If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. – emphasis added.
However, the specification does not provide any evidence that the claimed invention results in an improvement to the functioning of a computer, an improvement to conventional technology or technological processes, or is addressing a technology-based problem.
Additionally, the specification does not provide any evidence that there is even a technical (i.e., technology-based) problem to be solved. For example, the specification does not provide any evidence that existing technology (i.e., a graphic user interface) was incapable of performing the claimed functions but for the claimed technical solution.
Additionally, MPEP §2106.05(f)(1) recites:
Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it”. See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, claiming a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1356, 119 USPQ2d at 1743 – emphasis added.
Even assuming there was a technical problem, the claims, as written, fail to recite the details of how a technical solution to the technical problem was accomplished.
For example, if there was a technical problem (e.g., existing technology was incapable of performing the claimed functions) then the claims should recite the details of the technical solution (e.g., how existing technology was improved to overcome this inability). However, the claims, as written, provide no such details and merely recite that the claimed functions (i.e., the outcome) are being performed.
Applicant argues that the claimed invention is analogous to Core Wireless Licensing SARL v. LG Electronics, Inc. (Fed Cir. 2018), as the graphic user interface in the instant case has been improved. See Arguments, p. 12.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Core Wireless was deemed an improvement to graphical user interfaces as its specification provided sufficient details to establish that the invention was providing an improvement. The specification established the technological problem and the technological solution.
That is not analogous to the instant application. At best, the specification in the instant application merely asserts that its user interface is “better” than past user interfaces. The specification in the instant application does not provide sufficient details to establish that the invention was providing an improvement to graphic user interface technology by addressing a deficiency in graphic user interface technology.
Applicant further argues:
Furthermore, a POSITA would have recognized that these features would allow technological improvements, such as reduced computing resource and power consumption for the electronic device performing the claimed steps. For instance, because the differences between the different financial information are displayed visually (e.g., negative space between oculus visualizations), the electronic device does not need to perform additional calculations for quantifying these differences, reducing power consumption and processing. As another example, receiving an input directed to the financial oculus as claimed would rid the need to enter an actual number, allowing the electronic device to forgo displaying additional GUI elements and GUIs for entering an actual number and to forgo sensing for additional inputs, which would also reduce device power consumption and processing. Without the claimed machine-learning models and oculus visualizations, determining suggestions for improving financial health may require retrieval and analysis of the history on the electronic device, requiring more navigation, power consumption, and processing. These savings are especially important for mobile electronic devices, which have limited energy and processing capabilities, and for time-sensitive financial needs. See Arguments, p. 13 – emphasis added.
As to the indirect improvements to the technology (e.g., reduced computer resources and power consumption) based upon performance of the claimed invention, any software can be argued to improve a computer. It can always be argued that the software runs the process more efficiently thereby reducing the demands placed upon the computer system.
In the claimed invention, the computer has not been improved. The non-technological process that the software is performing may have been improved but, according to Alice, improving the process without any technological innovation is not statutory. To be “directed to a patent-eligible improvement to computer functionality,” the claim “must be directed to an improvement to the functionality of the computer or network platform itself.” Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (citing Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1336-39).
The computer still operates according to its known and standard capabilities. A reduction of load on the computer does not bring about an improvement to the computer, it merely offers resources to other processes that are running on the computer.
§103 Rejection
Applicant argues that the previously asserted prior art (Wasser and Artemiw) fails to teach or suggest newly amended claim language. See Arguments, pp. 13-15
The §103 Rejection has been rewritten and the prior art remapped to account for the newly amended claim language.
10. Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON M. BORLINGHAUS whose telephone number is (571)272-6924. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, RYAN D. DONLON can be reached on (571)270-3602. 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.
/Jason M. Borlinghaus/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692 January 9, 2026