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 .
Application Status
This action is in response to Applicant’s amendments received 2/17/2026.
Claims 2-4, 10-12, and 18-20 are canceled.
Claims 1, 5, 9, 13, 14, and 17 have been amended.
Claims 1, 5-8, 9, and 13-17 are pending and have been examined.
Withdrawn Rejections
The 35 U.S.C. §103 rejections of claims 1-3, 8-11, and 16-19 are withdrawn in view of the amendments received 3/12/2026.
Summary of Claim Rejections
Claims 1, 5-8, 9, and 13-17 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Acknowledgement of Issues Raised by Applicant
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections of claims 1, 5-8, 9, and 13-17 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. § 101
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections, examiner notes Applicant asserts the claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 and Alice/Mayo analysis per the claims providing additional elements that go beyond the judicial exception and integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, as the claims provide improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field1. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and maintains the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 (analysis continues below).
Examiner’s Response to Step 2A Prong II Arguments
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant arguments2 that the claims are directed to an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or another technology or technical field3 and integrate the judicial exception into a practical application for the following reasons:
Applicant’s arguments asserting the present application provides “…tracking…” and “…tracking deviations…” by “…iterative adjustments…” are not persuasive for the following reasons:
Applicant’s arguments are not commensurate with claim scope. Specifically, the claims are not limited to embodiments where repeated determinations of deviations are tracked continuously over time, as this is not claimed. The claims only require adjustments to occur once – the examiner fails to see any “iterative” process necessarily occurring over time within the scope of the claims. The claims only require performing adjustments once. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments are generally not persuasive, as there is no convincing means by which the instant claims result in “a reduction to storage requirements” in any meaningful sense. In other words, Examiner respectfully submits Applicant’s arguments are not commensurate with claim scope and do not reflect the purported improvements – see MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1): “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. Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, 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”.
The claimed aspects argued by Applicant are not technical aspects and instead aspects directed to performing the abstract adjustments directed to financial planning automatically, and is not indicative of a technological solution to a technical problem. The need for performing the adjustments in the instant claims are rooted only in the abstract idea recited. I.e., Applicant’s purported problem is unlike the problem solved in Desjardings, where the problem of catastrophic forgetting4 was addressed. Catastrophic forgetting is a technical problem necessarily rooted in machine learning technology; the same cannot be said for the problem of having to update information corresponding to their financial goals. In other words, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive, as merely automatically adjusting the abstract calculations based on mathematical deviations corresponding to the user’s financial goal by a general- purpose computer5 is not a technological solution to a technological problem; it is a post-hoc technical solution to an abstract business problem. See Customedia Techs. V. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, (Fed. Cir. 2020): “We have held that ‘claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer’ was insufficient to render the claims patent eligible as an improvement to computer functionality”.
Arguendo, even if it was necessarily assumed that multiple instances of user input would be otherwise required (of which examiner does not concede or agree per differing opinion on claim scope), examiner fails to see as to how this distinction necessarily results in a reduction in storage requirements as asserted by Applicant. It appears to examiner that Applicant arguments are implicitly taking the stance that conventional computer technology necessitates saving all inputs ever entered after new inputs are entered – this is not the case. Conversely, a computer iteratively performing more processing suggests, to one of ordinary skill in the art, additional storage requirements to handle processing.
The additional elements “by at least one processor”, “by the at least one processor”, and “…to a display …”of claim 1, the additional elements “A computing apparatus for …”, “…the computing apparatus comprising: a processor; a memory; a display; and a communication interface coupled to each of the processor, the memory, and the display;…”, “…wherein the processor is configured to…”, “…wherein the processor is further configured to…”, “…via the communication interface…”, and “…to the display…” of claim 9, and the additional elements “A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions for…”, “…the storage medium comprising a set of executable code which, when executed by a processor, causes the processor to:”, “…wherein when executed by the processor, the executable code further causes the processor to …”, and “…to a user interface…” of claim 17 amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea and/or merely limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP §§ 2106.05 (f), (h)), even when considering each claim’s additional elements both separately and as an ordered combination. Stating an abstract idea while adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) is insufficient to impart patent eligibility under Alice. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208, 223-24 (2014): "… Stating an abstract idea "while adding the words ‘apply it’ " is not enough for patent eligibility. … Nor is limiting the use of an abstract idea " ‘to a particular technological environment.’ … Stating an abstract idea while adding the words "apply it with a computer" simply combines those two steps, with the same deficient result”.
The claims merely invoke computers as tools to perform an abstract business process (e.g., the recited financial planning – see MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2)). This stance is supported by Applicant specification acknowledging the claimed computer components may include those of general-purpose computers6. Examiner notes that nearly every general-purpose computer generic to computer technology (e.g., the “computing apparatus”) includes processors and/or memory. Furthermore, the Applicant’s specification does not provide any technical descriptions of the hardware that could be reasonably construed as providing functional and/or structural characteristics distinguishable from that of a commercial-off-the-shelf general-purpose computer (For example, see Figs. 1-3, ref 100 and ¶¶39-40). Therefore, the hardware is understood to correspond to generic computer components that are so well-known in the art that it does not require additional delineation. Lastly, the “…applying of the optimization algorithm…” lacks technological details, and is merely used to process data drawn to the abstract idea, so as to achieve desired results rooted in the abstract idea recited (i.e., “…[determine] …an achievable percentage of the at least one financial goal of the user and at least one recommendation for modifying the first information in order to increase the achievable percentage …”,). Similarly, Applicant do not provide sufficient technical details drawn to the optimization process itself (see also ¶¶9-12, 14, 17, 19, 20, 22, 25, 27, and 28 of Applicant Specification). Accordingly, even when considered as an ordered combination, the claims’ additional elements are indistinguishable from mere addition of general-purpose computers added to the abstract idea ‘after the fact’ / ‘post-hoc’, which is insufficient to indicate improvements to computer functionality7.
The Applicant’s claims fail to provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP §§2106.04(d)(1) & 2106.05(a)). For example, the instant claims do not include any specific technical details as to how the claimed algorithm is specifically applied, so as to “[determine] …an achievable percentage of the at least one financial goal of the user and at least one recommendation for modifying the first information in order to increase the achievable percentage …”, beyond merely stating “… applying of the optimization algorithm…” (emphasis added). This supports the aforementioned determination that the additional elements of the independent claims are merely applied. See MPEP §2106.05 (f)(1): “…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’”.
Accordingly, for the reasons provided above, as well as in the 101 rejections further below, the Examiner respectfully maintains that the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A Prong II of Alice/Mayo Test: NO, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application), as the focus of the claims is not an improvement in computers as tools, but rather on an abstract idea of financial planning that uses computers as tools. Considered both separately and as an ordered combination, the additional elements of the claims do no more than represent computers performing functions that correspond to the acts of the abstract financial planning within a particular technological environment, and do not provide details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claims as reflecting an improvement to the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field.
In view of the above, the examiner respectfully maintains the claims are directed to an abstract idea under step 2A (Step 2A: The claims are directed to an abstract idea of financial planning), and maintains the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejections. The claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. §101, when analyzed under the Alice/Mayo test.
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, 5-8, 9, and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As an initial matter, the relevant test is the Alice/Mayo test8. The following analysis provided in this section results from the instant application’s claims being examined within the scope of the Alice/Mayo test framework.
With respect Step 1 of Alice/Mayo analysis, the claims are either directed to a method, system, or product of manufacture, which are statutory categories of invention (Step 1 of Alice/Mayo Test: YES).
In light of step 2A Alice/Mayo analysis performed on the instant claims9, claims 1-20 have been determined to be directed to an abstract idea of financial planning. The rationales for the aforementioned determination are explained further below.
Prior to step 2A Prong I Alice/Mayo analysis, examiner notes they have identified method claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis under step 2A Prong I, as method claim 1 is analogous to system claim 9 and product claim 17 under step 2A Prong I analysis. I.e., the step 2A Prong I Alice/Mayo rationales applied to claim 1 (below) are similarly applied to claims 9 and 17, mutatis mutandis.
When analyzed under prong I of revised step 2A, claims 1-20 each recite a method of organizing human activity,10 because independent claims 1, 9, and 17 each recite claim limitations drawn to:
“1. A method for providing a tool for individualized financial planning, the method being implemented …, the method comprising:
receiving… from a user, first information that relates to the user, the first information including at least one financial goal of the user, wherein the first information further includes a first predetermined number of time steps for achieving the at least one financial goal, a first amount of money that the user contributes per time step towards the at least one financial goal, and a second amount of money that the user expects to save after the first predetermined number of time steps;
applying, to the first information …, an optimization algorithm that is designed to analyze the first information with respect to the at least one financial goal, wherein the applying of the optimization algorithm comprises:
assigning a first user preference that corresponds to a willingness of the user to commit to the first predetermined number of time steps;
assigning a second user preference that corresponds to a willingness of the user to commit to the first amount of money;
assigning a third user preference that corresponds to a willingness of the user to commit to the second amount of money;
assigning a first weight that corresponds to the first user preference;
assigning a second weight that corresponds to the second user preference;
assigning a third weight that corresponds to the third user preference;
assigning a fourth weight that corresponds to an importance of a predetermined percentage of the second amount of money;
assigning a fifth weight that corresponds to a deviation from user input for the first predetermined number of time steps;
assigning a sixth weight that corresponds to a deviation from user input for the first amount of money; and
assigning a seventh weight that corresponds to a deviation from user input for the second amount of money;
determining … based on a result of the applying of the optimization algorithm to the first information, an achievable percentage of the at least one financial goal of the user and at least one recommendation for modifying the first information in order to increase the achievable percentage of the at least one financial goal of the user, wherein each of the first user preference, the second user preference, and the third user preference is a real number within a range of between zero (0) and one (1), and wherein the determining of the achievable percentage of the at least one financial goal of the user and the determining of the at least one recommendation for modifying the first information are based on the assigned first user preference, the assigned second user preference, the assigned third user preference, the assigned first weight, the assigned second weight, the assigned third weight, the assigned fourth weight, the assigned fifth weight, the assigned sixth weight, and the assigned seventh weight; and
determining … adjustments to the first information received from the user based on at least one of the deviation from the user input for the first predetermined number of time steps, the deviation from user input for the first amount of money, and the deviation from user input for the second amount of money;
and outputting, … the determined adjustments to the first information.”
Under broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification11, the above claim limitations recite fundamental economic practices of financial planning. (Step 2A Prong I of Alice/Mayo Test: Yes, the claims recite an abstract idea).
The aforementioned determination made under step 2A Prong I of Alice/Mayo analysis is supported by the following12:
Applicant specification’s “Field of the Disclosure” stating: “This technology generally relates to methods and systems for financial planning, and more particularly to methods and systems for providing a tool for individualized financial planning and navigation that is tailored to user preferences and offers flexibility with respect to modifications in financial goals.”
Applicant’s Background section, suggesting the inventive aspect of the claimed invention is that it is a solution to a problem of (¶7): “… there … [being] a need for a mechanism for providing a tool for individualized financial planning and navigation that is tailored to user preferences and offers flexibility with respect to modifications in financial goals.”
Applicant’s title of invention does not suggest the Applicant’s claimed invention is focused on anything other than providing preference-based financial planning.
Case law precedent indicates that the specificity of the abstract idea does not make an abstract idea any less abstract – see the following:
Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016): “A narrow claim directed to an abstract idea, however, is not necessarily patent-eligible …”.
Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp, 839 F.3d at 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016): “… a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea”.
Additionally, when analyzed under prong I of revised step 2A13, claims 1-20 recite mathematical concepts14 because independent claims 1, 9, and 17 each recite claim limitations drawn to:
“1. …
applying, to the first information …, an optimization algorithm that is designed to analyze the first information with respect to the at least one financial goal, wherein the applying of the optimization algorithm comprises:
assigning a first user preference that corresponds to a willingness of the user to commit to the first predetermined number of time steps;
assigning a second user preference that corresponds to a willingness of the user to commit to the first amount of money;
assigning a third user preference that corresponds to a willingness of the user to commit to the second amount of money;
assigning a first weight that corresponds to the first user preference;
assigning a second weight that corresponds to the second user preference;
assigning a third weight that corresponds to the third user preference;
assigning a fourth weight that corresponds to an importance of a predetermined percentage of the second amount of money;
assigning a fifth weight that corresponds to a deviation from user input for the first predetermined number of time steps;
assigning a sixth weight that corresponds to a deviation from user input for the first amount of money; and
assigning a seventh weight that corresponds to a deviation from user input for the second amount of money;
determining … based on a result of the applying of the optimization algorithm to the first information, an achievable percentage of the at least one financial goal of the user and at least one recommendation for modifying the first information in order to increase the achievable percentage of the at least one financial goal of the user, wherein each of the first user preference, the second user preference, and the third user preference is a real number within a range of between zero (0) and one (1), and wherein the determining of the achievable percentage of the at least one financial goal of the user and the determining of the at least one recommendation for modifying the first information are based on the assigned first user preference, the assigned second user preference, the assigned third user preference, the assigned first weight, the assigned second weight, the assigned third weight, the assigned fourth weight, the assigned fifth weight, the assigned sixth weight, and the assigned seventh weight; and
determining … adjustments to the first information received from the user based on at least one of the deviation from the user input for the first predetermined number of time steps, the deviation from user input for the first amount of money, and the deviation from user input for the second amount of money;
and outputting, … the determined adjustments to the first information.”
…”
Under broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, the above claim limitations are recitation of mathematical calculations15, including steps of, applying an optimization algorithm to determine a percentage and corresponding adjustments – mathematical calculations of which are used in furtherance of the abstract financial planning. Hence, independent claims 1, 9, and 17 each recite an additional abstract idea when analyzed under Step 2A Prong I of the Alice/Mayo test. Adding one abstract idea (e.g., the aforementioned mathematical calculations) to another (e.g., the claimed financial planning) does not render a claim non-abstract – see MPEP § 2106.04 II A 2 citing RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co. 855 F.3d 1322.
Prior to step 2A Prong II Alice/Mayo analysis, Examiner notes the following preliminary matter:
Consistent with guidance set forth in MPEP §2106.04 II B16, Examiner, under step 2A Prong II and step 2B analysis, treats the identified abstract ideas of claims 1-20 as a single abstract idea of ‘financial planning’, as the mathematical concepts identified in step 2A prong I are in furtherance of the abstract financial planning recited.
This judicial exception recited in independent claims 1, 9, and 17 is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong II of revised step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test17:
The additional elements “by at least one processor”, “by the at least one processor”, and “…to a display …”of claim 1, the additional elements “A computing apparatus for …”, “…the computing apparatus comprising: a processor; a memory; a display; and a communication interface coupled to each of the processor, the memory, and the display;…”, “…wherein the processor is configured to…”, “…wherein the processor is further configured to…”, “…via the communication interface…”, and “…to the display…” of claim 9, and the additional elements “A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions for…”, “…the storage medium comprising a set of executable code which, when executed by a processor, causes the processor to:”, “…wherein when executed by the processor, the executable code further causes the processor to …”, and “…to a user interface…” of claim 17 amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea and/or merely limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP §§ 2106.05 (f), (h)), even when considering each claim’s additional elements both separately and as an ordered combination. Stating an abstract idea while adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) is insufficient to impart patent eligibility under Alice. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208, 223-24 (2014): "… Stating an abstract idea "while adding the words ‘apply it’ " is not enough for patent eligibility. … Nor is limiting the use of an abstract idea " ‘to a particular technological environment.’ … Stating an abstract idea while adding the words "apply it with a computer" simply combines those two steps, with the same deficient result”.
The claims merely invoke computers as tools to perform an abstract business process (e.g., the recited financial planning – see MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2)). This stance is supported by Applicant specification acknowledging the claimed computer components may include those of general-purpose computers18. Examiner notes that nearly every general-purpose computer generic to computer technology (e.g., the “computing apparatus”) includes processors and/or memory. Furthermore, the Applicant’s specification does not provide any technical descriptions of the hardware that could be reasonably construed as providing functional and/or structural characteristics distinguishable from that of a commercial-off-the-shelf general-purpose computer (For example, see Figs. 1-3, ref 100 and ¶¶39-40). Therefore, the hardware is understood to correspond to generic computer components that are so well-known in the art that it does not require additional delineation. Lastly, the “…applying of the optimization algorithm…” is claimed at a high degree of generality, and merely used to process data drawn to the abstract idea, so as to achieve desired results rooted in the abstract idea recited (i.e., “…[determine] …an achievable percentage of the at least one financial goal of the user and at least one recommendation for modifying the first information in order to increase the achievable percentage …”,). Similarly, Applicant do not provide sufficient technical details drawn to the optimization process itself (see also ¶¶9-12, 14, 17, 19, 20, 22, 25, 27, and 28 of Applicant Specification). Accordingly, even when considered as an ordered combination, the claims’ additional elements are indistinguishable from mere addition of general-purpose computers added to the abstract idea ‘after the fact’ / ‘post-hoc’, which is insufficient to indicate improvements to computer functionality19.
The Applicant’s claims fail to provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP §§2106.04(d)(1) & 2106.05(a)). For example, the instant claims do not include any specific technical details as to how the claimed algorithm is specifically applied, so as to “[determine] …an achievable percentage of the at least one financial goal of the user and at least one recommendation for modifying the first information in order to increase the achievable percentage …”, beyond merely stating “… applying of the optimization algorithm…” (emphasis added). This supports the aforementioned determination that the additional elements of the independent claims are merely applied. See MPEP §2106.05 (f)(1): “…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’”.
The judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement under Alice/Mayo analysis, and an improvement in the abstract idea itself is not a technological solution to a technological problem (MPEP §§ 2106.05 (a), (a) II). See the following:
MPEP 2106.05(a) II: “… it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology … Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient.”
Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015): “... our precedent is clear that merely adding computer functionality to increase the speed or efficiency of the process does not confer patent eligibility on an otherwise abstract idea.”
Customedia Techs. V. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, (Fed. Cir. 2020): “We have held that ‘claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer’ was insufficient to render the claims patent eligible as an improvement to computer functionality”.
In light of the above rationales provided for step 2A Prong II analysis, the Examiner respectfully submits the focus of the claims is not on an improvement in computers as tools, but rather on an abstract idea that uses computers as tools. Considered both separately and as an ordered combination, the additional elements of the independent claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, as they do no more than represent computers performing functions that correspond to (,i.e., implement,) the acts of the abstract financial planning within a particular technological environment and do not provide details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claims as reflecting an improvement to the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field. (Step 2A Prong II of Alice/Mayo Test: NO, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application). Accordingly, claims 1, 9, and 17 are determined to be directed to an abstract idea.
When analyzed under step 2B20, claims 1, 9, and 17 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 1, 9, and 17, each when viewed as a whole, do not include elements amounting to significantly more, as their additional elements, each viewed both individually and as an ordered combination, amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract financial planning concept within a particular technological environment – see MPEP §§ 2106.05 (f), (h) and Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208, 223-24 (2014). Even though claims 1, 9, and 17 utilize a processor, computing apparatus comprising processors, memory, display, communication interface, and non-transitory memory, the manner by which the claims’ additional elements are used is indistinguishable from mere addition of general-purpose computers added post-hoc to the abstract idea recited. Nothing in the claims indicate specific steps undertaken by the computer elements that are beyond conventional functionality of generic general-purpose computers being used at a high degree of generality, excepting the abstract idea it is merely used as a tool for – the claimed computer implementation itself is wholly generic when viewed in light of computer technology. Accordingly, when considered both separately and as an ordered combination, none of the elements of the independent claims add significantly more to the abstract idea itself (i.e., an inventive concept), as merely employing computers as tools to automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the judicial exception itself – see BSG Tech LLC vs. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018): “It has been clear since Alice that a Claimed invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot supply the inventive concept that renders the invention ‘significantly more’ than that ineligible concept”.
Hence, independent claims 1, 9, and 17 are not patent eligible.
With respect to the dependent claims, they have each been given the full Alice/Mayo analysis, including analyzing the additional elements both individually and as an ordered combination (if any). The dependent claims are also held patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because of the same reasoning as above, and because the claim limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims are integrated into a practical application or amount to significantly more. The rationales for the aforementioned determinations are explained further below.
With respect to dependent claims 5-7 and 15, and their limitations each fail to provide any further additional elements outside the abstract idea, and only further specify the abstract financial planning concept. Furthermore, their limitations do not indicate that the previously mentioned additional elements of their respective parent claims successfully integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself, either individually or as an ordered combination. Accordingly, claims 2-7, 10, 15, and 18 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, dependent claims 5-7 and 15 are also not patent eligible.
With respect to dependent claims 8 and 16, they recite further details of the abstract financial planning, per reciting limitations drawn to “…displaying… a result of the determining of the achievable percentage of the at least one financial goal of the user and the at least one recommendation for modifying the first information”. The additional element, “…by the at least one processor on a user interface…” does no more than represent the use of computers as tools to perform the abstract idea and/or merely limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP §§ 2106.05(f) & 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, when considered as a whole, these claims do not improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and do not amount to significantly more. Therefore, dependent claims 8 and 16 are also not patent eligible.
With respect to dependent claims 13 and 14, the additional limitations, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not recite additional elements outside of the abstract idea that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims fail to establish that the previously mentioned additional elements are successfully integrated / amounting to significantly more, either alone or in combination, and the additional elements “…wherein the processor is further configured to…” and “…wherein when executed by the processor, the executable code further causes the processor to” do no more than represent the use of computers as tools to perform the abstract idea and merely limits the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP §§ 2106.05(f) & 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, in view of the claims failing to establish that the aforementioned additional elements are successfully integrated / amounting to significantly more, either alone or in combination, dependent claims 13 and 14 are not patent eligible subject matter.
Conclusion
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
United States Patent Application Publication No. US-20230114589-A1 (Siow). Siow discloses a financial planning method which includes proposed adjustments (abstract). Examiner notes this is the closest prior art of record that has the same assignee as the instant application.
Non-Patent Literature, “Decision analysis using targets instead of utility
functions” (Bordley). At least pages 54, 55, and 67-70 are relevant. Bordley is relevant in that it discloses uncertainty about the target itself in decision making, of which may involve multi-attribute decision making. Bordley discloses normalization of single-attribute utility functions and the overall utility functions can both be normalized to the range of [0,1].
United States Patent Application Publication No. US 20240127329 A1 (Walters). At least Fig 4B and ¶41 are relevant.
United States Patent Publication No. US 7577597 B1 (Allison). Allison discloses a system for determining financial strategies satisfying financial goals (abstract). Also includes success probabilities (Fig. 10), and utility scoring based on multiple attributes (Figs. 6-8 and at least col 10, lines 49-62).
Non-Patent Literature, “Dynamic Optimization for Multi-Goals Wealth Management” (Das 2021). Entire document is pertinent.
Non-Patent Literature, “Dynamic Portfolio Allocation in Goals-Based Wealth Management” (Das 2019). At least §§ 2.1, 3.3, and 4.3.4 are pertinent.
Non-Patent Literature, “EFFICIENT GOAL PROBABILITIES: A NEW FRONTIER” (Das 2023). At least abstract and pages 5, 6, and 8-12 are relevant.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK A MALKOWSKI whose telephone number is (313)446-6624. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00AM - 5:00PM ET.
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, Matthew Gart can be reached at (571) 272-3955. 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.
/M.A.M./ Examiner, Art Unit 3696
/MATTHEW S GART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3696
1 See pages 19-20 of Applicant Remarks. Examiner notes pages 17-18 are citing various 101 procedures/guidance, and not addressing specific arguments pertaining to the claim limitations themselves.
2 Pages 19-20 of Remarks.
3 I.e., a technological solution to a technological problem.
4 A problem of which is necessarily rooted in machine learning technology.
5 See ¶39 of Applicant specification.
6 See ¶39 of Applicant specification: “The processor 104 may be a general-purpose processor …”.
7 See MPEP §§ 2106.05(f)(2) & 2106.05(a) I.
8 See MPEP § 2106 I.
9 See MPEP §§ 2106.04 I, II, (d) I.
10 See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) II
11 See MPEP § 2111.
12 MPEP §2106.07, underline emphasis added: “When evaluating a claimed invention for compliance with the substantive law on eligibility, examiners should review the record as a whole (e.g., the specification, claims, the prosecution history, and any relevant case law precedent or prior art) before reaching a conclusion with regard to whether the claimed invention sets forth patent eligible subject matter.”
13 MPEP §§ 2106.04(a), 2106.04 II A 1
14 MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) I
15 MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) I C
16MPEP §2106.04 II B, underline emphasis added: “For example, in a claim that includes a series of steps that recite mental steps as well as a mathematical calculation, an examiner should identify the claim as reciting both a mental process and a mathematical concept for Step 2A Prong One to make the analysis clear on the record. However, if possible, the examiner should consider the limitations together as a single abstract idea for Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B ... rather than as a plurality of separate abstract ideas to be analyzed individually.”
18 See ¶39 of Applicant specification: “The processor 104 may be a general-purpose processor …”.
19 See MPEP §§ 2106.05(f)(2) & 2106.05(a) I.
20 See MPEP § 2106.05.
Prosecution Insights