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 .
The prior double patenting rejections are withdrawn in view of the Terminal Disclaimers filed on 02/06/2026 and approved on 02/23/2026.
The following rejections are withdrawn in view of new grounds of rejection necessitated by applicant’s amendments:
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-10, 13-17, and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson (US Application: US 20140052615, published: Feb. 20, 2014, filed: Jun. 5, 2013) in view of Owen (US Application: US 2018/0349556, published: Dec. 6, 2018, filed: Jul. 5, 2017) in view of Jaffe et al (US Application: US 20020165799, published: Nov. 7, 2002, filed: Mar. 1, 2001).
Claim(s) 4, 11 and 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson (US Application: US 20140052615, published: Feb. 20, 2014, filed: Jun. 5, 2013) in view of Owen (US Application: US 2018/0349556, published: Dec. 6, 2018, filed: Jul. 5, 2017) in view of Jaffe et al (US Application: US 20020165799, published: Nov. 7, 2002, filed: Mar. 1, 2001) in view of Lieb et al (US Application: US 2017/0093780, published: Mar. 30, 2017, filed: Sep. 27, 2016).
Claim(s) 5, 12 and 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson (US Application: US 20140052615, published: Feb. 20, 2014, filed: Jun. 5, 2013) in view of Owen (US Application: US 2018/0349556, published: Dec. 6, 2018, filed: Jul. 5, 2017) in view of Jaffe et al (US Application: US 20020165799, published: Nov. 7, 2002, filed: Mar. 1, 2001) in view of Ehlen et al (US Patent: 9026915, issued: May 5, 2015, filed: Oct. 31, 2005).
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/06/2026 has been entered.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3, 21 and 22 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6-10, 13, 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson (US Application: US 20140052615, published: Feb. 20, 2014, filed: Jun. 5, 2013) in view of Owen (US Application: US 2018/0349556, published: Dec. 6, 2018, filed: Jul. 5, 2017) in view of Avera et al (US Application: US 20170139924, published: May 18, 2017, filed: Nov. 17, 2015).
With regards to claim 1, Anderson teaches a method comprising:
accessing, by the processor of the service provider, a plurality of [documents] (Fig 2, paragraph 0053: a system/service having a processor and memory is implemented and also a plurality of cards/documents are retrieved and accessed for display in a carousel view);
generating, by the processor of the service provider, a plurality of populated [documents] , wherein each respective populated [document] of the plurality of populated templates is generated by [rendering] a graphic representing a respective insight of a plurality of insights into [location] specific [document] … and inserting text describing the respective insight into another [location] of that specific [document] (paragraph 0123, Fig. 14: a plurality of documents/cards can be rendered with content such that each instance of a card/document selected can include text (name of the merchant such as ‘Hardware Store’ or ‘Coffee Spot’, an image (as shown by a background image in the ‘Coffee Spot’ card, and a link to access more information (such as the ‘View Tab’ interactive button area that allows user provide input to link to another view/action);
generating, by the processor of the service provider, a graphical user interface … a plurality of slides, such that each respective slide of the plurality of slides comprises a respective populated [document] of the plurality of populated [documents] (paragraph 0123 and Fig 14: an interactive image carousel view displays a plurality of cards as slides with business/merchant content in a scrollable thumbnail type list view; and
providing, by the processor of the service provider, the graphical user interface (Fig 14: interface content is provided and displayed).
However although Anderson teaches documents/cards being populated/rendered with content (graphical and/or text content) for business data (insight data), and generating/rendering interactive slides content for a carousel, Anderson does not expressly teach the document/cards are templates and the content are inserted into field(s) of their respective templates. More specifically, Anderson does not expressly teach receiving, by a processor of a service provider, a plurality of insights from an entity, wherein each insight of the plurality of insights is generated from an analysis of a user’s historical financial transaction data; … each respective template of the plurality of templates defining fields that are spatially positioned within the respective template; retrieving, by the processor of the service provider, a specific template from the plurality of templates for each respective insight of the plurality of insights based on one or more characteristics of the respective insight; … populated templates for the plurality of templates … the field of the specific template retrieved for that respective insight … ; generating … a … user interface by inserting the plurality of populated templates into a plurality of slides, ….; providing … the .. .interface to a client device communicatively coupled to the service provider.
Yet Owen teaches the document/cards are templates and the content are inserted into field(s) of their respective templates. More specifically Owen teaches … each respective template of the plurality of templates defining fields that are spatially positioned within the respective template; … populated templates for the plurality of templates, wherein each respective populated template … is generated by inserting [data] into … the field of the specific template … ; generating … a … user interface by inserting the plurality of populated templates into a plurality of slides, …. (paragraphs 0005, 0007, claim 20 of Owen: fields are positioned in a particular template (of a plurality of available templates) and the particular template’s fields are populated with content. The particular template is then inserted into a document by populating the document with the template. ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Anderson’s ability to generate document/card (slide) content from a repository of documents (slides) for user navigation and viewing of transaction content in a carousel view, such that the documents include filled-template(s) (having positioned fields of data populated), as taught by Owen. The combination would have allowed Anderson to have allowed documentation to be easily maintained, efficiently updated , and rendered (Owen, paragraph 0003) .
However the combination does not expressly teach receiving, by a processor of a service provider, a plurality of insights from an entity, wherein each insight of the plurality of insights is generated from an analysis of a user’s historical financial transaction data; retrieving, by the processor of the service provider, a specific template from the plurality of templates for each respective insight of the plurality of insights based on one or more characteristics of the respective insight; the field of the specific template retrieved for that respective insight …; … providing … the .. .interface to a client device communicatively coupled to the service provider.
Yet Avera et al teaches receiving, by a processor of a service provider, a plurality of insights from an entity, wherein each insight of the plurality of insights is generated from an analysis of a user’s historical financial transaction data (Abstract, Fig. 5A: a back-end entity generates a plurality of identified action records based upon analysis of user transactions from a data store which is received by a report generation system (interpreted as a report ‘service provider’)); retrieving, by the processor of the service provider, a specific template from the plurality of templates for each respective insight of the plurality of insights based on one or more characteristics of the respective insight (Fig. 5A, paragraphs 0012 and 0072: a report that is unpopulated (interpreted as a template) defining specific fields and other additional criteria is retrieved based on field characteristics of one or more identified action records); the field of the specific template retrieved for that respective insight … (paragraph 0072: the specific identified records/transactions are associated with fields of the specific defined unpopulated report and then the report can be populated); … providing … the .. .interface to a client device communicatively coupled to the service provider (Fig 5A: the populated report (data interface) is provided to client users having a front end system and the report is viewable).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Anderson and Owen’s ability to generate a document/slide by inserting populated content into the slide document (that is presented as an interface to a requesting user), such that a report is retrieved to corresponding reviewed/analyzed financial transaction data and a service entity provides interface content to the requesting user/client computer, as taught by Avera et al . The combination would have allowed Anderson and Owen to have provided selected operational information for users within an organization in a consistent and customizable data presentation.
With regards to claim 6. The method of claim 1, Andersen teaches wherein generating the graphical user interface comprises arranging the plurality of slides as thumbnails on a graphical user interface page of the graphical user interface, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1 (as explained in paragraph 0123 and Fig. 8 of Anderson and in the rejection of claim 1, available slides can be scrolled to view the available slides as thumbnails images/icons via list view), and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 7. The method of claim 1, Anderson teaches wherein generating the graphical user interface comprises an image carousel, and wherein generating the graphical user interface comprises arranging the plurality of slides in the image carousel, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1 (paragraph 0123 and Fig. 14: thumbnails of slides of content are displayed in a scrollable carousel view), and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 8, the combination of Anderson, Owen, and Avera et al teaches a system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more computer-readable storage media storing instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to perform operations including: receiving a plurality of insights from an entity, wherein each insight of the plurality of insights is generated from an analysis of a user’s historical financial transaction data; accessing a plurality of templates, each respective template of the plurality of templates defining fields that are spatially positioned within the respective template; retrieving a specific template from the plurality of templates for each respective insight of the plurality of insights based on one or more characteristics of the respective insight; generating a plurality of populated templates for the plurality of templates, wherein each respective populated template of the plurality of populated templates is generated by inserting a graphic representing a respective insight of the plurality of insights into a field of the specific template of the plurality of templates and inserting text describing the respective insight into another field of the specific template; generating a graphical user interface by inserting the plurality of populated templates into a plurality of slides such that each respective slide of the plurality of slides comprises a respective populated template of the plurality of populated templates; and providing the graphical user interface to a client device communicatively coupled to a service provider, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 9. The system of claim 8, the combination of Anderson, Owen and Avera et al teaches wherein the plurality of insights is associated with a plurality of financial transactions facilitated by the service provider, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 2, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 10. The system of claim 8, the combination of Anderson, Owen and Avera et al teaches wherein each respective populated template of the plurality of populated templates is further generated by inserting a link for accessing information related to the respective insight into a link field of the respective template, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 13. The system of claim 8, the combination of Anderson, Owen and Avera et al teaches wherein generating the graphical user interface comprises arranging the plurality of slides as thumbnails on a graphical user interface page of the graphical user interface, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 6, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 15, the combination of Anderson, Owen and Avera et al teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause a system to perform operations comprising: receiving a plurality of insights from an entity, wherein each insight of the plurality of insights is generated from an analysis of a user’s historical financial transaction data; accessing a plurality of templates, each respective template of the plurality of templates defining fields that are spatially positioned within the respective template; retrieving a specific template from the plurality of templates for each respective insight of the plurality of insights based on one or more characteristics of the respective insight; generating a plurality of populated templates for the plurality of templates, wherein each respective populated template of the plurality of populated templates is generated by inserting a graphic representing a respective insight of the plurality of insights into a field of the specific template retrieved for that respective insight and inserting text describing the respective insight into another field of the specific template; generating a graphical user interface by inserting the plurality of populated templates into a plurality of slides such that each respective slide of the plurality of slides comprises a respective populated template of the plurality of populated templates; and providing the graphical user interface to a client device communicatively coupled to a service provider, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 16. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, the combination of Anderson, Owen and Avera et al teaches wherein the plurality of insights is associated with a plurality of financial transactions facilitated by the service provider, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 2, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 17. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, the combination of Anderson, Owen and Avera et al teaches wherein each respective populated template of the plurality of populated templates is further generated by inserting a link for accessing information related to the respective insight into a link field of the respective template, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 3, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 4, 11 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson (US Application: US 20140052615, published: Feb. 20, 2014, filed: Jun. 5, 2013) in view of Owen (US Application: US 2018/0349556, published: Dec. 6, 2018, filed: Jul. 5, 2017) in view of Avera et al (US Application: US 20170139924, published: May 18, 2017, filed: Nov. 17, 2015) in view of Lieb et al (US Application: US 2017/0093780, published: Mar. 30, 2017, filed: Sep. 27, 2016).
With regards to claim 4. The method of claim 1, the combination of Anderson, Owen and Avera et al teaches wherein each respective slide of the plurality of slides, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale.
However Anderson , Owen and Avera et al does not expressly teach wherein each respective slide of the plurality of slides further comprises a respective indicator area for indicating whether the respective slide has been previously viewed.
Yet Lieb et al teaches wherein each respective slide of the plurality of slides further comprises a respective indicator area for indicating whether the respective slide has been previously viewed (paragraph 0195, Fig 15: data shared among one or more other users can include a display area that includes an indicator that shows whether one or more other users have viewed a particular shared data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Anderson , Owen and Avera et al’s ability to display cards/slides filled in with business transaction data, such that the cards could have been displayed with indications of one or more other users that have viewed the shared data, as taught by Lieb et al. The combination would have allowed Anderson , Owen, Avera et al have allowed implementation of a more intuitive and meaningful interface.
With regards to claim 11. The system of claim 8, the combination of Anderson , Owen , Avera et al and Lieb et al teaches wherein each respective slide of the plurality of slides further comprises a respective indicator area for indicating whether the respective slide has been previously viewed, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 4, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 18. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, the combination of Anderson , Owen , Avera et al and Lieb et al teaches wherein each respective slide of the plurality of slides further comprises a respective indicator area for indicating whether the respective slide has been previously viewed, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 4, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 5, 12 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson (US Application: US 20140052615, published: Feb. 20, 2014, filed: Jun. 5, 2013) in view of Owen (US Application: US 2018/0349556, published: Dec. 6, 2018, filed: Jul. 5, 2017) in view of Avera et al (US Application: US 20170139924, published: May 18, 2017, filed: Nov. 17, 2015) in view of Ehlen et al (US Patent: 9026915, issued: May 5, 2015, filed: Oct. 31, 2005).
With regards to claim 5. The method of claim 1, the combination of Anderson , Owen and Avera et al teaches wherein each respective slide of the plurality of slides, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale.
However the combination does not expressly teach .. further comprises a respective indicator for indicating a slide number among a total number of slides for the respective slide.
Yet Ehlen et al teaches further comprises a respective indicator for indicating a slide number among a total number of slides for the respective slide (Fig. 1: an indicator displayed with a presented slide is used to show a current slide number with respect to a total number of a set of slides).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Anderson , Owen and Avera et al’s ability to process and display a plurality of slides in a carousel navigation interface, such that the interface would have further included an indicator to identify a current slide of focus/display amongst a total number of slides, as taught by Ehlen et al. The combination would have allowed a user to have easily identified and navigated to a desired slide through an identified number.
With regards to claim 12. The system of claim 8, the combination of Anderson , Owen, Avera et al and Ehlen et al teaches wherein each respective slide of the plurality of slides further comprises a respective indicator for indicating a slide number among a total number of slides for the respective slide, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 5, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 19. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, the combination of Anderson , Owen, Avera et al and Ehlen et al teaches wherein each respective slide of the plurality of slides further comprises a respective indicator for indicating a slide number among a total number of slides for the respective slide, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 5, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive (with regards to 35 USC 103 rejections). The prior double patenting rejections are withdrawn in view of applicant’s filed terminal disclaimer.
With regards to claims 1-13 and 15-19 , the applicant argues they are allowable in view of the amendments to the independent claims. However the amendments have necessitated a new grounds of rejection and the examiner respectfully directs applicant’s attention to the rejection of the independent claims above for an explanation as to how the independent claims are rejected. The examiner notes the claims that are dependent upon the independent claims are rejected with the exception of claims 2, 3, 21 and 23 which are noted above as objected-to for allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILSON W TSUI whose telephone number is (571)272-7596. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 am -6 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, Adam Queler can be reached at (571) 272-4140. 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.
/WILSON W TSUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172