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 .
Claim Status
Claims 2-21 are currently pending and are presented for examination on the merits.
Difference in scope from parent
Deleted: “comprising at least a bank account asset type and a physical object asset type”
“and (2) prompting . . . photographs”
“and update the new asset of the owner by: monitoring . . . new transaction.”
Objections
Drawing Objections
The drawings are objected to for including hand-drawn reference labels, which in some places are difficult to discern by themselves (e.g., 508 or 509?). Where hand-drawn labels are facilely replaceable (e.g., the drawing is not a screenshot or otherwise photograph), Applicant is asked to replace same with machine produced labels.
Also, many figures appear to be photographs. As stated in 37 CFR 1.84(b)(1), photographs will be accepted if they are the only practical medium for illustrating the claimed invention. In some figures indicia included in the screenshot is ineligible. If said indicia is a part of the disclosure, appropriate correction is required. Otherwise, it is assumed that the particular indicia on the website is not significant. Applicant is reminded that all drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black, sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. See 37 CFR 1.84(l).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Double Patenting
***A terminal disclaimer is indicated in the remarks, but not found in the file wrapper. Appropriate clarification is requested.***
Claims 2-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 11,887,192. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the broader instant claims recite the same limitations contained in the narrower claims of the parent applications. As such, the instant claims are obvious in light of the parent claims.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In reLongi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Omum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(1)(1) - 706.02(1)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/ AIA / 26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An e-Terminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
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 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, because they recite non-patentable subject matter, under the 2019 PEG, October update. The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (e.g., an abstract idea, etc.) without practical application or significantly more.
More particularly, when considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Broad categories of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices, certain methods of organizing human activities, an idea itself, and mathematical relationships/formulas. See, generally Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. __ (2014) (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,132 S. Ct. 1289, 1294, 1297-98 (2012)); Federal Register notice titled 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility (79 FR 74618), which is found at: http:// www. gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-12-16/pdf/2014-29414.pdf; 2015 Update to the Interim Guidance; the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Fed. Reg., Vol. 84, No. 4, January 7, 2019; and associated Office memoranda.
Under the 2019 PEG, step 2a-prong 1, Claims 2-21 recite a judicial exception(s), including a method of organizing human activity (e.g. fundamental economic principle that was previously performed by the human mind and manually) though drafted as system claims. More particularly, the entirety of the method steps are directed towards a software application for financial planning and the use thereof, and more particularly to the presentment of financial portfolio information using a GUI and tree structure, managing access rights to information, which are all long standing commercial practices, particularly in the financial planning arts. That is to say, the display of financial information, the use of a GUI to accomplish same, the use of a hierarchical tree, and the administration of access rights to the information are all economic in nature and pre-existing methods of organizing human activity. All of these activities have wide spread commercial practice, especially where using PC’s and Microsoft Windows file explorer.
Under step 2a-prong 2, the claims fail to recite a practical application of the exception, because the extraneous limitations (directed towards the hierarchical tree structure, and access rights) merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g), and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h). The claims recitation of an interface comprising first and second panes and a hierarchical tree fails to offer a practical application because it is similar to Microsoft Windows® file explorer, wherein objects are able to be dragged and dropped from one pane to another, which is itself a long-standing tool used in commercial practice, and a part of conventional PC’s. (See, e.g., US 2003/0197895 ([0028], etc.); https:// answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/windows_10-files/how-to-display-entire-tree-in-windows-10-file/5cb5b28c -ffe9-47f4-b312-41f5c7a17955, etc.) That is to say, in file explorer a hierarchical tree is presented wherein different folders may or may not be accessible to a user depending upon access rights. The claims fail to recite an improvement to the functioning of a computer or technology (under MPEP § 2106.05(a)), the use of a particular machine (under § 2106.05(b)), effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article (§ 2106.05(c)), or apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (§ 2106.05(e)).
Under part 2b, the additional elements (an interface, first and second panes, etc.) recite insignificant extra-solution activity, and applies the abstract idea across generic computing technology. It is noted that the quantity of extraneous limitations are reduced in comparison to the parent application (deletions were not supplanted by additions of other subject matter from the specification). The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because no one claim effects an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself, or move beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular environment (financial planning). Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. Under Alice, merely applying or executing the abstract idea on one or more generic computer system (e.g., a computer system comprising a generic database; a generic element (NIC) for providing website access, etc.; a generic element for receiving user input; and a generic display on the computer, in any of their forms) to carry out the abstract idea more efficiently fails to cure patent ineligibility. See, e.g., Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347 (claims reciting a “scanner” are nevertheless directed to an abstract idea); Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Serv. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324–25 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims reciting an “interface,” “network,” and a “database” are nevertheless directed to an abstract idea).
Courts have recognized the following computer functions to be well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner: performing repetitive calculations, receiving, processing, and storing data, electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, electronic recordkeeping, automating mental tasks, and receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data. MPEP 2106.05(d)
Response to remarks
Applicant’s remarks submitted on 6/27/2025 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive where objections/rejections are maintained. The claims are unamended. The objection to the drawings is maintained, despite the acceptance of informal drawings in the issued parents. It is requested that the hand-drawn labels and photographs be formalized or otherwise improved for clarity (within the family). Examiner is willing to discuss this request. As per Double Patenting, the terminal disclaimer indicated is not found in the file wrapper. As per § 101, the claims are broader than the parent claims and exclude several limitations, the totality of which created a practical application. The claims remain directed to a software package that combines several pre-existing functions for displaying and restricting access to (e.g., financial) information. Upon traversal, Applicant is asked to identify an innovative concept amongst the limitations (e.g., which limitation or dependent claim is considered novel), or if conventional, how the limitations taken as a whole provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
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 WILLIAM J JACOB whose telephone number is (571)270-3082. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00-5:00, alternating Fri. off.
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, Namrata Boveja can be reached on 5712728105. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WILLIAM J JACOB/Examiner, Art Unit 3696