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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 30 March 2026 with respect to the 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues on pages 13-15 that the claims do not recite a judicial exception and merely involve one. The Applicant further argues that no part of the claim is directed toward using rules to determine financial recommendations despite the specification explicitly listing the service that “can provide unique individual insights after learning about a spending history of an individual” and “can be implemented as a financial avatar or a financial assistant that can provide financial insights (e.g., tailored recommendations and/or analysis, etc.) based at least in part on an individual’s financial conditions”… and/or based at least in part on external financial conditions.” The claims do recite the judicial exception and not but involve the judicial exception evidenced by the claim limitations in the previous rejection identified as aspects of the abstract idea. Applicant argues on pages 15-19 that the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The Examiner disagrees because applying the general technology of edge computing in a particular environment (finance) is similar to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to particular technology environment or field of use. In MPEP 2106.04(d) it is clear that in evaluating improvements in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to any other technology or technical field “the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification” which the Examiner had previously asserted was not present in the claims as previously presented. The privacy argument presented by the Applicant goes against the claim limitations that explicitly recite transmitting the transaction data from the client device to an edge computing device, which then generates the federated machine learning models for generating snapshot data using the transmitted data. Additionally, data is not explicitly encrypted in the independent claims. Applicant argues on pages 19-20 that the claims recite significantly more than the judicial exception. The basis of the rejection did not allege that the additional elements were conventional or unconventional. The use of machine learning models to generate outputs is a conventional use of machine learning models or algorithms in general. Additionally, the rejection has been updated below to address the claim limitations as well as newly presented 112(a) rejections. Applicant argues on page 20-22 that the claims are improperly rejected under 35 USC 101. The Examiner disagrees because each claim, independent and dependent, were analyzed for eligibility under 35 USC 101 and determined to not contain eligible subject matter.
Applicant's arguments filed 30 March 2026 with respect to the 103 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 103 rejection of 29 December 2025 has been withdrawn. The prior art references fail to teach or disclose at least “synchronize the snapshot data assigned to the user profile with the edge computing device by retrieving updated snapshot data based at least in part on a time interval, where the updated snapshot data is generated by the edge computing device executing the aggregated model instance.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-7 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 “generate an aggregated model instance, based on combining the plurality of federated machine learning models” and “send the aggregated model instance to the edge computing device.” The specification does not contain any disclose or teaching that the client device itself generated the aggregated model and then sends the model to edge computing devices, but does disclose that an edge computing device transmits a generated MLM to a computing environment of a remote computing device, which then creates an aggregated MLM.
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 8-14 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 8 recites “receiving a plurality of federated machine learning models ….”, “generating an aggregated model instance …”, and “sending the aggregated model instance …” but does not specify what component or entity is receiving, generating or sending the data. It is unclear to the Examiner if the client device of claim 1 or recited earlier in claim 8 is performing these method steps or if edge computers or a remote computer is performing the method steps.
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. In the instant case, claim 8 is directed to a “method”.
Claim 8 is directed to the concept of “using rules to determine financial recommendations” which is grouped under “organizing human activity… fundamental economic practice (mitigating risk is a form of financial recommendations), commercial or legal interactions (sales activities or behaviors and business relations is similar to transaction analysis and financial recommendations), and managing personal behavior (providing recommendations is a form of providing rules or instructions to follow)” in prong one of step 2A (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). Claims 1 & 8 recite identifying a purchase for a user profile associated with the client device; transmitting transaction data associated with the purchase [to a remote computing device] for generating snapshot data; synchronizing the snapshot data assigned to the user profile [with the remote computing device] based at least in part on a time interval, where the snapshot data comprises a plurality of insight actions applicable to a plurality of financial accounts of the user profile; determining a current user state based at least part on a current status of the plurality of financial accounts associated with the user profile; determining an insight action from the plurality of insight actions to display based at least in part on the current user state and the snapshot data; and displaying the [virtual avatar interface to include] the insight action. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). Claim 15 is directed to the abstract idea of “using rules to determine financial recommendations” which is grouped under “organizing human activity… fundamental economic practice (mitigating risk is a form of financial recommendations), commercial or legal interactions (sales activities or behaviors and business relations is similar to transaction analysis and financial recommendations), and managing personal behavior (providing recommendations is a form of providing rules or instructions to follow)” in prong one of step 2A (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance). Claim 15 recites receive transaction data; generate a federated machine learning model based at least in part on the transaction data; transmit the federated machine learning model; receive an aggregated machine learning model, wherein the aggregated machine learning model representing a combination of the federated machine learning model and a previous aggregated machine learning model; generate snapshot data for the client device based at least in part on the aggregated machine learning model and a user context associated with the client device, the snapshot data comprising a plurality of insight actions applicable to a financial account associated [with the client device]; and synchronize the snapshot data [with the client device] based at least in part on a time interval, the snapshot data being configured for use by a [virtual avatar interface] to present one of the plurality of insight actions. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (See MPEP 2106.04(d)), the additional elements of the claim such as client device, a processor, a memory, and edge computing device of a remote computing device represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than ‘Apply it’ the abstract idea to a particular field of use (MPEP 2106.05(f)&(h)). Additionally, the steps of receiving a plurality of federated machine learning models generated by a plurality of edge computing devices, including at least the edge computing device; generating an aggregated model instance, based at least on combining the plurality of federated machine learning models; sending the aggregated model instance to the edge computing device represent the standard use of federated machine learning models as shown in Amid US 2024/0070530 in at least [0001] “In traditional federated learning, an on-device ML model is stored locally on a client device of a user, and a global ML model, that is a cloud-based counterpart of the on-device ML model, is stored remotely at a remote system (e.g., a cluster of servers). During a given round of federated learning, the client device, using the on-device ML model, can process an instance of client data detected at the client device to generate predicted output, and can compare the predicted output to ground truth output to generate a client gradient. Further, the client device can transmit the client gradient to the remote system, or can update the on-device ML model locally at the client device and transmit the updated on-device ML model (or updated on-device weight(s) thereof) to the remote system. The remote system can utilize the client gradient (or the updated on-device ML model or the updated on-device weight(s) thereof), and optionally additional client gradients generated in a similar manner at additional client devices (or additional updated on-device ML model(s) or additional updated on-device weight(s) thereof updated in the same or similar manner at the additional client devices), to update global weight(s) of the global ML model. The remote system can transmit the global ML model (or updated global weight(s) of the global ML model), to the client device (and/or the additional client devices). The client device (and/or the additional client devices) can then replace the on-device ML model with the global ML model (or replace the on-device weight(s) of the on-device ML model with the updated global weight(s) of the global ML model), thereby updating the on-device ML model.” Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to (i.e. implement) the acts of using rules to determine financial recommendations.
When analyzed under step 2B (See MPEP 2106.05), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. The claim limitations of a virtual avatar interface is a display of recommendations and part of the abstract idea, but can also be considered extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g) data gathering and selecting data for analysis. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely describe the concept of using rules to determine financial recommendations using computer technology (e.g. a computing device). Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ a computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea, which cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)).
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 do not remedy the deficiencies of the independent claims and are rejected accordingly. The dependent claims further refine the abstract idea of the independent claims and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claims 2 & 9 specify where the data originated, which is an aspect of the abstract idea, claims 3 & 10 are additional aspects of the abstract idea of identifying previous insights, which is recalling and displaying data as well, claims 4, 6-7,11, 13-14 are additional aspects of the abstract idea because second updated snapshot data is retrieved based on a time interval. Claims 5 and 12 further retrieves snapshot data based on a time interval, which is an aspect of the abstract idea and does not positively recite waking or activating a device from a sleep or offline state. Claims 16-20 further specify the data used to generate the model and snapshot data which are aspects of the abstract idea. In this case, all claims have been reviewed and are found to be substantially similar and linked to the same abstract idea (see Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo (Fed. Cir. 2014)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Chhibber US 2023/0041015 “Federated Machine learning computer system architecture” Amid US 2024/0070530 “Hybrid federated learning of machine learning model(s)” Lee US 2025/0036961 “Group Bias Mitigation in federated learning systems”.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 DAVID P SHARVIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9863. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am - 5 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ryan Donlon can be reached at 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.
/DAVID P SHARVIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692
Prosecution Insights