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 .
Acknowledgement
The amendment/request for reconsideration dated 01/23/2026 is acknowledged.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3, 10, 12 and 19 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 remain pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching.
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 1-20 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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claims 1, 10 and 19 recite, “ generating, by a first circuit of the provider computing device,…;…obtaining, by a second circuit of the provider computing device…; … modify, by a third circuit of the provider…”. According to the specification, “[0045] The virtual coaching circuit 112 of the provider computing system 110 is embodied or at least partly embodied in the at least one memory device 117, with at least some operations being executable by the processing circuit 113. In general, the virtual coaching circuit 112 is configured to allow the virtual coaching system 100 to adapt as required based on goal/plan (i.e. the type of goal and the nature of the plan required to accomplish the goal) and/or user characteristics to provide the intended tailored and customized user-specific virtual coaching. To that effect, as illustrated in FIG. 2, the virtual coaching circuit 112 of the provider computing system 110 includes a user profile circuit 231, a plan creation circuit 233, a coach creation circuit 234, a coaching implementation circuit 235, a virtual coach database 232, and an optional adaptive circuit 236.”
The claims are not commensurate with the written description inasmuch as the enumerated circuits that are functionally claimed do not directly correspond to the circuit structures described in the specification. See MPEP 2164.
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.
Claim 3 is 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.
The term “desired” in claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “desired ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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 a judicial exception without significantly more.
Claims 1-9 a method and/or process of financial coaching, wherein claims 10-18 are directed to a system and claims 19-20 are directed to computer readable medium to implement the process.
The method and system having devices are statutory. At least claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea (see Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility 6. Guidance) of financial coaching. Claim 1 can be group as certain methods of organizing human activity being related to economic 7. practices of a financial advisor or educator in the management of personal behavior. The claim(s) recites, "receiving,... the one or more feature inputs, receiving a financial goal of the user; setting, one or more items; modifying,... at least one features of the baseline virtual coach based on the financial goal in accordance with the one or more items; and generating,..., the custom virtual coach comprising the one or more modified features; and sending,..., a communication containing information related to the financial goal of the user...". Accordingly, the process implements the abstract idea of financial coaching. 11. This judicial 8. exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance), the additional elements of elements the claim such as "financial institution computing system", "user device", "logic", and "merchant computing system" represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical as they do more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to automate the acts of financial. When analyzed under step 2B (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance), the 9. claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely describe the concept of using rules to authorize a financial transaction using computer technology (e.g. financial institution computing system). 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)). Hence, claim 1 is not patent eligible. 10. Claim 2-9 do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. 11. Claim 10 and 19 are rejected for similar reasons as claim 1. 12. Claims 11-18 are rejected because they do not provide significantly more than the abstract 13. idea.
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grizack et al (US 2006/0074788) in view of Groarke et al (US 2018/0096350).
Regarding claims 1, 10 and 19, Grizack discloses a method, system and medium of providing virtual financial coaching to a user [¶0004- method and system], (Fig. 4)(item# 152-storage device such as a hard disk drive, zip drive, etc.,) comprising:
creating, by a provider computing device (Fig.1)(item# 102), a custom virtual coach based on one or more feature inputs (Fig. 1)(item# 102)(item# 114),(Fig. 2)(item# 116)(item# 118)(item# 122)[¶0064], comprising;
receiving, from a user device (Fig. 1)(item# 110), the one or more feature inputs; (Fig. 1)(Fig. 2)(item# 114)(item# 116)(item# 118)(item# 122)[¶0061-¶0064, esp., ¶0064-wherein factors and other criteria are tailored by the user to meet selected goals]
receiving, from the user device, a financial goal of the user; (Fig. 1)(Fig. 2)((item# 120)[¶0064] and
generating, by a first circuit of the provider computing device (Fig.4)(item# 102)[¶0067], the custom virtual coach based on the one or more feature inputs and the financial goal of the user; (Fig. 1)(Fig. 2)(item# 114)(item# 116)(item# 118)(item# 122)[¶0064]
sending, by the provider computing device, a communication containing information related to the financial goal of the user to the user device; )(Fig. 2)(item# 114)(item# 116)(item# 118)(item# 122)[¶0061-¶0064]
assessing, by the provider computing device, an effectiveness of the custom virtual coach corresponding to the financial goal (Fig. 14-17)[¶0034-¶0037, ¶0145-¶0152]
Grizack discloses wherein the automated coaching system may collect information in regards to geographic location [see [¶0081] and transaction data [see ¶0072- wherein transaction data herein under the broadest reasonable is regarded as price or historical price data or pricing information], [¶0038-¶0039], [¶0151], over a time period [¶0157-¶0159]
modifying, by a third circuit of the provider computing device, at least one feature of the custom user virtual coach based on the assessment determination, the at least one feature including a tone of communication, a content type of communication, or a timing of communication.[¶0038-¶0039, ¶0064- timing is considered as well as goals defined]
Grizack fails to disclose, but Groarke discloses,
comparing, by the second circuit, the geolocation and transaction data to an expected user behavior (usage) stored in a database;[¶0003, ¶0007, ¶0011, ¶0022] and
determining, by the second circuit, based on the comparison, that at least one of the geo-location or the transaction data does not meet the expected user behavior;[¶0022-¶0023]
Since Grizack’s is also concerned with financial goals that are associated with spending behavior at different locations [see 0122-discussing user goals and spending behavior associated with vacations], it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to have employed the features of Groarke, comparing and determining whether certain types of spending are within expected user behavior. The motivation would be to deter fraudulent activities or limit spending not inline with the user’s budget.
Regarding claims 2, 11 and 20, Grizack wherein generating the custom virtual coach is based on a at least one of a tone of a communication, a positive or negative reinforcement scheme for the communication, a type of language used in the communication, an amount of feedback to provide the user, or a content type preference for the communication. [¶0069- HTML or Javascript can be used], [¶0079- content type or specific text can be used]
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Grizack wherein the communication is sent based on at least one of a desired time interval between communications or at least one monitored period of user usage of a display of the user device, or geolocation data received from the user device.[¶0161]
Regarding claims 4 and 13, Grizack wherein further comprising transmitting, by the provider computing device, a graphical user interface including one or more user options that are selectable via the user device to select one or more of the feature inputs.[¶0074]
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Grizack discloses, wherein generating the custom virtual coach is based on a baseline virtual coach.[¶0064]
Regarding claims 6 and 15, Grizack disclose, wherein the communication comprises a message configured to be displayed on a screen of the user device via a mobile application.[¶0034], [¶0078]
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Grizak disclose, wherein at least one feature of the communication is generated based on a modified feature of the custom virtual coach. (Fig. 2)(item#122)[¶0064][¶0130-¶0135, ¶0138]
Regarding claims 8 and 17, Grizak discloses, wherein the information related to the financial goal of the user includes at least one of a criticality of the financial goal, a difficulty of achieving the financial goal, or a time sensitivity for achieving the financial goal. (Fig. 2)(item#122)[¶0064][¶0130-¶0135, ¶0138]
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Grizak, further comprising obtaining, by the provider computing device, personal information related to the user, wherein one or more personal traits of the user are obtained by the provider computing device from a source of user personal information that is stored by an account database of the provider computing device.[¶0075-¶0076-demographic-date of birth, marital status, number of children, place of residence, etc.,]
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Torossian et al (US 2015/0206128), (2012/0232981) discloses a contactless wireless transaction processing system
Saunders (US 2006/0074813) discloses a system and method for remotely initializing a RF transaction.
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 DANIEL S FELTEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6742. The examiner can normally be reached Flex.
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 D Donlon can be reached at 5712703602. 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.
DANIEL S. FELTEN
Examiner
Art Unit 3692
/DANIEL S FELTEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692