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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the amendment filed 11/10/2025. Applicant has amended claims 1, 5, 10, 11, 19, 20 and cancelled claims 4, 13. Claims 5-9, 14-18 are withdrawn (non-elected). Accordingly, claims 1-3, 11-12, 19 and 20 are pending for examination.
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 1-3, 11-12, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites the abstract idea of “determining budgetary allocation and providing budgetary recommendation”, which is grouped under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” such as “fundamental economic principles or practices”- financial planning/mitigating risk (MPEP 2016.04(a)).
Specifically, claim 1 recites “receiving … user selection of a target activity from a predetermined plurality of activities”, “wherein the target activity is to be completed within a first predefined time period”, “receiving …first information associated with a set of preferences that corresponds to the selected target activity”, “retrieving … second information associated with the selected target activity and the first information, wherein the second information is retrieved from at least one external source”, “analyzing …on a …model…the first information and the second information to determine a budgetary allocation for the selected target activity”, “generating …a preliminary budgetary recommendation based on the determined budgetary allocation, “rendering …the preliminary budgetary recommendation to receive a user input” and “generating …a final budgetary recommendation based on the user input received in response to the preliminary budgetary recommendation” and “wherein the first information comprises a time horizon, a destination preference, a transportation preference, a dining preference, a shopping preference, an accommodation preference, an itinerary preference and any other targe activity related preferences” and “wherein the second information comprises economic indicator data that comprises price trends, inflation trends, foreign exchange rate trends, and any other economic indicators associated with the target activity”.
Accordingly, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (MPEP 2106.04II), the additional elements of claim 1 such as “by the at least one processor”, “hardware” and “via a display” represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. With respect to “(analyzing/predicting) …using a recommendation engine”, the claims lack detail regarding what “using” comprise (MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)). Therefore, as Applicant has neither placed a restriction on how “using” is performed nor describe how the functions are accomplished the limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they are no more than “apply it” (MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)).
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.04II), because the additional elements do no more than represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use, they do not provide an improvement to computer functionality, or an improvement to another technology or technical field and, therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f)&(h)).
Hence, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Depending claims 2-4 further recite “analyzing…the user input to identify a user behavioral pattern towards the rendered preliminary budgetary recommendation and predicting, … an optimal amount for the final budgetary recommendation based on a result of the analyzing of the user behavioral pattern (claim 2)”, “wherein the predetermined plurality of activities comprises retirement planning, house purchase planning, vacation planning, vehicle purchase planning, wedding planning, education planning, and at least one other type of financial planning (claim 3)”, “wherein the first information comprises at least one from among a time horizon, a destination preference, a transportation preference, a dining preference, a shopping preference, an accommodation preference, an itinerary preference and any other target activity related preference wherein the second information comprises economic indicator data that comprises at least one from among price trends, inflation trends, current news, current affairs, market trends, purchasing power parity trends, foreign exchange rate trends, and any other economic indicators associated with the selected target activity (claim 4)” , which is grouped under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” such as “fundamental economic principles or practices”- financial planning/mitigating risk (MPEP 2016.04(a)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (MPEP 2106.04II), the additional elements of claims 2-3, such as “by the at least one processor (claim 2)” represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. With respect to “(predicting)…using the recommendation engine (claim 2), the claims lack detail regarding what “using” comprise (MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.04II), because the additional elements do no more than represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use, they do not provide an improvement to computer functionality, or an improvement to another technology or technical field and, therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f)&(h)).
Hence, depending claims 2-3 are not patent eligible.
Claim 10 is also directed to the abstract idea of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” such as “fundamental economic principles or practices”- financial planning/mitigating risk (MPEP 2016.04(a)).
As in the case of claim 1, claim 10 includes additional elements such as “computing device”, “processor”, “memory”, “a communication interface coupled to each of the processor and memory”, “via a display”. Each, however, does not more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment. With respect to “(analyzing/predicting) …using a recommendation engine”, the claims lack detail regarding what “using” comprise (MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.04II), because the additional elements do no more than represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use, they do not provide an improvement to computer functionality, or an improvement to another technology or technical field and, therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f)&(h)).
Hence, claim 10 is not patent eligible.
Depending claims 11-12 further recite “analyzing…the user input to identify a user behavioral pattern towards the rendered preliminary budgetary recommendation and predicting, … an optimal amount for the final budgetary recommendation based on a result of the analyzing of the user behavioral pattern (claim 11)”, “wherein the predetermined plurality of activities comprises retirement planning, house purchase planning, vacation planning, vehicle purchase planning, wedding planning, education planning, and at least one other type of financial planning (claim 12)”, which is grouped under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” such as “fundamental economic principles or practices”- financial planning/mitigating risk (MPEP 2016.04(a)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (MPEP 2106.04II), the additional elements of claims 11-12, such as “the processor (claim 11)” represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. With respect to “(predicting)…using the recommendation engine (claim 11), the claims lack detail regarding what “using” comprise (MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.04II), because the additional elements do no more than represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use, they do not provide an improvement to computer functionality, or an improvement to another technology or technical field and, therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f)&(h)).
Hence, depending claims 11-12 are not patent eligible.
Claim 19 is also directed to the abstract idea of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” such as “fundamental economic principles or practices”- financial planning/mitigating risk (MPEP 2016.04(a)).
As in the case of claim 1, claim 19 includes additional elements such as “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions”, “executed by a processor” and “via a display”. Each, however, does not more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment. With respect to “(analyze/predict) …using a recommendation engine”, the claims lack detail regarding what “using” comprise (MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.04II), because the additional elements do no more than represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use, they do not provide an improvement to computer functionality, or an improvement to another technology or technical field and, therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f)&(h)).
Hence, claim 19 is not patent eligible.
Depending claim 20 further recites “analyze…the user input to identify a user behavioral pattern towards the rendered preliminary budgetary recommendation and predict, … an optimal amount for the final budgetary recommendation based on the identified user behavioral pattern”, which is grouped under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” such as “fundamental economic principles or practices”- financial planning/mitigating risk (MPEP 2016.04(a)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (MPEP 2106.04II), the additional elements of claim 20, such as “cause the processor to…” represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. With respect to “(predict)…using the recommendation engine, the claim lack detail regarding what “using” comprise (MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.04II), because the additional elements do no more than represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use, they do not provide an improvement to computer functionality, or an improvement to another technology or technical field and, therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f)&(h)).
Hence, depending claim 20 is not patent eligible.
Claims 1-3, 11-12, 19 and 20 have been searched and reviewed. No prior art has been found that discloses, either expressly or inherently, all of the limitations of the claimed invention. Even though MAHESHWART et al. (US 2017/0053363 A1) discloses analyzing information using recommendation engine to determine budgetary allocation for a selected target activity, it does not teach the analysis is based on all of a time horizon, a destination preference, a transportation preference, a dining preference, a shopping preference, an accommodation preference, an itinerary preference, any other target activity related preference, price trends, inflation trends, current news, current affairs, market trends, purchasing power parity trends, foreign exchange rate trends, and any other economic indicators associated with the selected target activity and that a final budgetary recommendation is generated based on user input received in response to the preliminary budgetary recommendation (generated using all of these information). No combination of references found in examiner’s search renders the claims obvious. Therefore, no rejection under 102/103 is made.
Related But Not Relied Upon
Relevant prior art cited but not applied: Young et al. (US 2006/0271463 A1), directed to financial planning.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims are statutory under 35 U.S.C. 101 because 1) the amended claims are not directed to abstract idea and 2) the analyzing is performed by hardware model. The examiner disagrees. The claims recite the abstract idea of “determining budgetary allocation and providing budgetary recommendation”, which is grouped under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” such as “fundamental economic principles or practices”- financial planning/mitigating risk (MPEP 2016.04(a)). The additional element “hardware” represents the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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 CHIA-YI LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-1573. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9-8 pm.
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.
/CHIA-YI LIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692