CTFR 18/915,779 CTFR 93462 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims This action is in reply to the amendment filed 04/10/2026. Claims 1, 9, and 17 have been amended and claims 6 and 4 have been canceled. Claims 1-5, 7-13, and 15-20 are pending and have been examined on the merits (claims 1, 9, and 17 being independent). The amendment filed 04/10/2026 to the claims has been entered. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed 04/10/2026 have been fully considered. Application has amended to the claims so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and as such, the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn. Applicants assert that the pending claims fully comply with the requirement of 35 U.S.C. 101. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s argument and amendments have been considered and are not persuasive. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been maintained and clarified in view of the USPTO MPEP 2106. Applicant’s argument (see Applicant’s remarks, pages 8-12) Step 2A - Prong 1 (1) Applicant’s argument that “The Office Action concludes that the claims are directed to an abstract idea and asserts that this idea falls under the grouping of organizing human activity. Applicant respectfully submits that this characterization is overly generalized and does not accurately reflect the claimed invention.” (see page 8), are not found persuasive. Response (1): Under Step 2 A, Prong 1 of the 2019 Revised § 101 Guidance, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception such as a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea (See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355) by identify the specific limitation(s) in the claim that recites abstract idea(s); and then determine whether the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the MPEP 2106.04. The cited limitations as drafted are systems and methods that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a method of organizing human activity, but for the recitation of the generic computer components. Further, none of the limitations recite technological implementations details for any of the steps but, instead, only recite broad functional language being performed by the generic use of a processor. Providing a financial plan to an individual based on the aggregated data is a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in commerce systems. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a fundamental economic principle or practice but for the general linking to a technological environment, then it falls within the organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea Step 2A - Prong 2 (2) Applicant’s argument that “Applicant further asserts that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. Rather, the claims as a whole meaningfully limit the alleged abstract ideas into a practical application.” (see page 11), are not found persuasive. Response (2): It is determined whether the claim is directed to the abstract concept itself or whether it is instead directed to some technological implementation or application of, or improvement to, this concept, i.e., integrated into a practical application. See, e.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 223, discussing Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981 ). The mere introduction of a computer or generic computer technology into the claims need not alter the analysis. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223-24. "[T]he relevant question is whether the claims here do more than simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer." Alice, 573 U.S. at 225. In the present case, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application by claiming an improvement to the functioning of the computer or to any other technology or technical field. Further, the claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application by applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way. In particular the additional elements of “data aggregation subsystem”, “artificial intelligence (AI) subsystem”, “behavior monitoring subsystem”, and “notification subsystem” are claimed and described at a high level of generality and are functions any general purpose computer performs such that it amounts no more than mere instruction to apply the exception to a particular technological environment. Further, none of the limitations recite technological implementations details for any of the steps but, instead, only recite broad functional language being performed by the generic use of a computer. However, the use of these additionally elements, described at a high level of generality, perform generic computer functions such that it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaning limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed toward an abstract idea. Step 2B (3) Applicant’s argument that “Furthermore, the independent claims recite significantly more than an abstract idea.” (see page 11), are not found persuasive. Response (3): The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exactly using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea. With regard to the rejections of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102/103, Applicant’s arguments and amendments have been considered but are not persuasive and Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that Applicant is arguing newly amended claim language. As noted in the citation above the prior art and it is addressed by the rejections under 35 USC 103. In consideration of Applicant’s arguments and amendments of independent claim 1, clarifying citations with regard the Gormley in view of Dintenfass references have been made to the 35 USC § 103 rejection above. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 AIA Claim s 1-5, 7-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. The terms “ same or similar …” in the claims 1, 9, and 17 are a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ same or similar ” 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. The claim limitations “ same or similar ” in claims 1, 9, and 17 are unclear because what is the same or similar to one person might not be the same or similar to someone else. Dependent claims (2-5, 7-8, 10-13, 15-16, and 18-20) stand rejected also, under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) by virtue of their dependency on a rejected claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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, 7-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter without significantly more. When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, (1) it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, (2a) it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so (2b), it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices; certain methods of organizing human activities; an idea itself; and mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. , 573 U.S. (2014). 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. In the instant case, the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Step (1): In the instant case, the claims are directed towards to a method for providing a financial plan to an individual based on the aggregated data which contains the steps of aggregating, generating, updating, monitoring, comparing, and transmitting. The claim recites a series of steps and, therefore, is a process. The claims do fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 1 is direct to a system, claim 9 is direct to a method, and claim 17 is direct to a computer program, i.e. machines programmed to carrying out process steps, Step 1-yes. Step (2A) Prong 1: A method for providing a financial plan to an individual based on the aggregated data is akin to the abstract idea subject matter grouping of: Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity as fundamental economic principles or practices and/or commercial or legal interactions . As such, the claims include an abstract idea. The specific limitations of the invention are (a) identified to encompass the abstract idea include: { cause … to aggregate data from a user; generate an initial user-specific financial plan based on the aggregated data, wherein the initial user-specific financial plan comprises one or more resource checkpoints; update the user-specific financial plan in response to user feedback to the initial user-specific financial plan; continuously monitor user actions and/or user behavior, comprising at least non- financial browsing patterns; compare the user actions and/or user behavior to the user-specific financial plan; cause …. to: transmit preemptive notifications to the user based on detected patterns of user actions and/or user behavior, wherein the preemptive notifications comprise potential issues related to misalignment of user actions and/or user behavior with the resource checkpoints; predict potential challenges for the user based on historical data from peers in same or similar financial situation as the user, wherein the predicted potential challenges are based on at least the non-financial browsing history used to predict an impulse purchase; generate recommendations to the user to avoid and/or resolve the predicted potential challenges.} As stated above, this abstract idea falls into the (b) subject matter grouping of: Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity as fundamental economic principles or practices and/or commercial or legal interactions as providing a financial plan/recommendation to an individual based on the aggregated data. Step (2A) Prong 2: The instant claims do not integrate the exception into a practical application because additional elements: 1) “data aggregation subsystem”, “artificial intelligence (AI) subsystem”, “behavior monitoring subsystem”, “notification subsystem”, and “prediction subsystem” amount to simply applying the abstract idea to a computer component. (e.g. “apply it”) 2) “computer program product” also amounts to simply applying the abstract idea to a generic computer. (e.g. “apply it” or the equivalent) do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception (i.e. generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use - see MPEP 2106.05(h) or apply it with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The instant recited claims including additional elements (i.e. data aggregation subsystem, artificial intelligence (AI) subsystem, behavior monitoring subsystem, notification subsystem, prediction subsystem, computer program product) do not improve the functioning of the computer or improve another technology or technical field nor do they recite meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The limitations merely use a generic computing technology (Specification paragraph [0033]: end-point device(s), network, distributed computing environment, one or more of the systems, devices, and/or servers, multi-processor system ) as generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use - see MPEP 2106.05(h) or apply it with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea Step (2B): The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements (Claims: e.g., data aggregation subsystem, artificial intelligence (AI) subsystem, behavior monitoring subsystem, notification subsystem, prediction subsystem, computer program product) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exactly using generic computer component. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea over a generic computer network with a generic computer element. The computer is merely a platform on which the abstract idea is implemented. Simply executing an abstract concept on a computer does not render a computer “specialized,” nor does it transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent-eligible one. See Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 687 F.3d 1266, 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2012). There are no improvements to another technology or technical field, no improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing or any other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment as a result of performing the claimed method. Also, the addition of merely novel or non-routine components to the claimed idea does not necessarily turn an abstraction into something concrete (See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, _ F.3d_, 2014 WL 5904902, (Fed. Cir. Nov. 14, 2014). Hence, the claims do not recite significantly more than an abstract idea. In conclusion, merely “linking/applying” the exception using generic computer components does not constitute ‘significantly more’ than the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05 (f)(h)). Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101. Dependent claims 2-5, 7-8, 10-13, 15-16, and 18-20 when analyzed as a whole and in an ordered combination are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea, as detailed below. The additional recited limitations in the dependent claims only refine the abstract idea. For instance, in claims 2, 10, and 18, the step of “… wherein the data comprises zero-party data gathered directly from the user.” (i.e., a user inputs data), in claims 3, 11, and 19, the step of “… wherein the data comprises user-provided financial goals.” (i.e., a user provides financial goals), in claims 4, 12, and 20, the step of “… wherein the user feedback further enriches a user portfolio used to refine the user-specific financial plan.” (i.e., refining financial plan), in claims 5 and 13, the step of “… transmit notifications to the user when deviations from the user-specific financial plan….” (i.e., sending a notification), in claims 7 and 15, the step of “… generate a visual representation of the user-specific financial plan,…..” (i.e., generating a visual output), and in claims 8 and 16, the step of “… wherein the visual representation comprises charts, graphs, or other visual elements ...” (i.e., providing visual elements such as graphs) are all processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a fundamental economic practice but for the recitation of a generic computer component. Providing an user-specific financial plan based on data from the user and the user actions/behavior is a most fundamental commercial process. This is an abstract concept with nothing more and is also considered mere instructions to apply an exception akin to a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. ; Gottschalk and Versata Dev. Group, Inc. ; see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). In dependent claims 2-5, 7-8, 10-13, 15-16, and 18-20, the step claimed are rejected under the same analysis and rationale as the independent claims 1, 9, and 17 above. Merely claiming the same process using artificial intelligence (AI) to provide a user-specific financial plan based on the data from the user does not change the abstract idea without an inventive concept or significantly more. Clearly, the additional recited limitations in the dependent claims only refine the abstract idea further. Further refinement of an abstract idea does not convert an abstract idea into something concrete. Therefore, claims 1-5, 7-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-20-aia AIA 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. In the rejections below, where claims are currently amended, this is indicated by underlining. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-5, 9-13, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gormley et al. (hereinafter Gormley), US Publication Number 2025/0182196 A1 in view of Dintenfass et al. (hereinafter Dintenfass), US Publication Number 2017/0076380 A1 . Regarding claim 1: Gormley discloses the following: A system for intelligent generation and tracking of resource checkpoints, the system comprising: (see Gormley, figs. 8B-9D, and [0093] “track the user's progress towards the goal, providing regular updates, reminders, and adjustments based on any changes in the user's financial situation. The AI model continuously learns from user interactions and feedback, refining its goal-generation capabilities for future interactions. The instant solution may suggest new goals or modifications to existing ones based on the user's current financial status and past achievements.”, and see also [0122]) a processor; a non-transitory storage device containing instructions that, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to perform the steps of: (see Gormley, [0002] “an apparatus that may include a memory and a processor communicably coupled to the memory, the processor configured to perform”) cause a data aggregation subsystem to aggregate data from a user; (see Gormley, [0119] “Users input their financial details and consent to data retrieval from external sources”) cause a generative artificial intelligence (AI) subsystem to: generate an initial user-specific financial plan based on the aggregated data, wherein the initial user-specific financial plan comprises one or more resource checkpoints; and (see Gormley, [0119] “enabling the AI model to generate initial financial goals based on the user's current financial situation.”, and see also [0121-0122]) update the user-specific financial plan in response to user feedback to the initial user-specific financial plan; (see Gormley, [0119] “enabling the AI model to generate initial financial goals based on the user's current financial situation. These goals are presented for user review and adjustment, with real-time updates and recommendations to ensure adaptability.”, and see also [0121]) cause a behavior monitoring subsystem to : continuously monitor user actions and/or user behavior, comprising at least non-financial browsing patterns; and (see Gormley, [0065] “the instant solution can analyze user behavior and preferences over time to offer more personalized and relevant suggestions. In one embodiment, the instant solution may feature real-time updates and adjustments based on the availability of services, price fluctuations, and user modifications, ensuring that the user gets the most accurate and up-to-date information.”) compare the user actions and/or user behavior to the user-specific financial plan; (see Gormley, [0130] “continuously monitors the user's financial activity and progress towards the numerical goal. This includes tracking their savings contributions, income changes, expenses, and other relevant financial transactions. The monitoring is performed periodically to assess the user's financial behavior.”, and see also [0129]) cause a notification subsystem to: transmit preemptive notifications to the user based on detected patterns of user actions and/or user behavior, wherein the preemptive notifications comprise potential issues related to misalignment of user actions and/or user behavior with the resource checkpoints; and (see Gormley, [0130] “The AI model may identify the need to modify the numerical goal based on the monitored user activity. For example, suppose a user initially set a goal to save for a vacation but experiences a significant increase in income. The AI model might recommend a higher savings goal to take advantage of the improved financial situation. As the AI model recommends, any modifications to the numerical goal are displayed on the user's profile page via the user interface. This ensures the user is informed of changes and can adjust their financial planning accordingly.”) Gormley does not explicitly disclose the following, however Dintenfass further teaches: cause a prediction subsystem to: predict potential challenges for the user based on historical data from peers in same or similar financial situation as the user, wherein the predicted potential challenges are based on at least the non-financial browsing history used to predict an impulse purchase; and (see Dintenfass, [0028] “information about life events obtained from transaction information, social media information, public records, other publicly available information, and/or information otherwise provided by one or more individuals may be used as bases for the development of transaction rules. For example, if the couple shares an interest in saving a larger percentage of their income, they might institute a rule that meals purchased during the work day should be limited to a certain dollar amount when possible, and/or that the expenditures associated with the hobbies of the individuals in the couple should be limited to a certain amount per month. These rules can then be applied to the transactions displayed to the respective spouses, and expenditures that are inconsistent with the rules can be identified to the spouses. In some situations, an individual within the couple or the couple as a whole may opt to challenge each other or accept a challenge issued by a third party, such as a financial institution, to take steps to more closely align their transactions with their financial goals. For example, if the couple is attempting to limit expenditures on hobby-related purchases, the individuals in the couple may be challenged to attempt to limit their expenditures below a certain threshold.”, and see NOTES: Examiner considers that Dintenfass teaches the recited claim “ predict potential challenges for the user based on historical data….. ” as it teaches for predicting a potential challenge based on transaction information, social media information, public records, other publicly available information, and/or information otherwise provided by one or more individuals may be used as bases for the development of transaction rules. For example, if the couple is attempting to limit expenditures on hobby-related purchases, the individuals in the couple may be challenged to attempt to limit their expenditures below a certain threshold as the predicted potential challenge.) generate (reads on “Rewards may be offered in connection with a challenge, such as a coupon for a discount at an individual's favored restaurant and/or merchant, or other such rewards”) recommendations to the user to avoid and/or resolve the predicted potential challenges. (see Dintenfass, [0028] “an individual within the couple or the couple as a whole may opt to challenge each other or accept a challenge issued by a third party, such as a financial institution, to take steps to more closely align their transactions with their financial goals. For example, if the couple is attempting to limit expenditures on hobby-related purchases, the individuals in the couple may be challenged to attempt to limit their expenditures below a certain threshold. Rewards may be offered in connection with a challenge, such as a coupon for a discount at an individual's favored restaurant and/or merchant, or other such rewards.”) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify training an artificial intelligence (AI) model to recommend financial goals or plans based on execution of the AI model on historical profile data and contextual data that is associated with the historical profile data, storing profile data of a user profile within a data store of a software application of Gormley to include encourage the users to engage in transactions that adhere to the transaction rules and/or avoid transactions that are inconsistent with the transaction rules through the use of a challenge issued to the users, as taught by Dintenfass, in order to meet their financial goals. (see Dintenfass, [0028]) Regarding claim 2: Gormley discloses the following: The system of Claim 1, wherein the data comprises zero-party data gathered directly from the user. (see Gormley, [0119]“Users input their financial details and consent to data retrieval from external sources”) Regarding claim 3: Gormley discloses the following: The system of Claim 1, wherein the data comprises user-provided financial goals. (see Gormley, [0128] “Users engage with the instant solution through the user interface, typically on their profile page, where they input preferences, aspirations, and contextual details such as vacation savings …. For example, if a user is saving for a vacation, providing details like income, current savings, and travel preferences, the AI model calculates a recommended savings goal.”) Regarding claim 4: Gormley discloses the following: The system of Claim 1, wherein the user feedback further enriches a user portfolio used to refine the user-specific financial plan. (see Gormley, [0122] “the software application sends an updated goal generation request to the AI model. This request message is triggered when the user adjusts the recommended goals. It includes the updated user goals and feedback to refine the financial goals based on the user's input.”) Regarding claim 5: Gormley discloses the following: The system of Claim 1, wherein the notification subsystem is further configured to: transmit notifications to the user when deviations from the user-specific financial plan are detected, wherein the notifications further comprise recommendations suggesting adjustments to align the user actions and/or user behavior with the resource checkpoints. (see Gormley, [0130] “The AI model may identify the need to modify the numerical goal based on the monitored user activity. For example, suppose a user initially set a goal to save for a vacation but experiences a significant increase in income. The AI model might recommend a higher savings goal to take advantage of the improved financial situation. As the AI model recommends, any modifications to the numerical goal are displayed on the user's profile page via the user interface. This ensures the user is informed of changes and can adjust their financial planning accordingly.”) Regarding claims 9 and 17: it is similar scope to claim 1, and thus it is rejected under similar rationale. Regarding claims 10 and 18: it is similar scope to claim 2, and thus it is rejected under similar rationale. Regarding claims 11 and 19: it is similar scope to claim 3, and thus it is rejected under similar rationale. Regarding claims 12 and 20: it is similar scope to claim 4, and thus it is rejected under similar rationale. Regarding claim 13: it is similar scope to claim 5, and thus it is rejected under similar rationale . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 7-8 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gormley in view of Dintenfass in further view of Page, US Publication Number 2016/0247233 A1 . Regarding claim 7: Gormley and Dintenfass do not explicitly disclose the following, however Page further teaches: The system of Claim 1, further comprising a visualization subsystem, configured to: generate a visual representation of the user-specific financial plan, wherein the visual representation shows the user’s progress towards achieving the one or more resource checkpoints. (see Page, [0033] “The customized financial interface, as depicted in FIG. 3, may also include a visual depicting the user's financial goal progress, as indicated at 66.”) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify training an artificial intelligence (AI) model to recommend financial goals or plans based on execution of the AI model on historical profile data and contextual data that is associated with the historical profile data, storing profile data of a user profile within a data store of a software application of Gormley to include a visual depicting the user's financial goal progress, as taught by Page, in order to track more easily the user’s progress. (see Page, [0003-0005]) Regarding claim 8: Gormley and Dintenfass do not explicitly disclose the following, however Page further teaches: The system of Claim 7, wherein the visual representation comprises charts, graphs, or other visual elements that reflect completed and pending steps within the user-specific financial plan. (see Page, fig. 3 and [0033] “The customized financial interface, as depicted in FIG. 3, may also include a visual depicting the user's financial goal progress, as indicated at 66.”) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify training an artificial intelligence (AI) model to recommend financial goals or plans based on execution of the AI model on historical profile data and contextual data that is associated with the historical profile data, storing profile data of a user profile within a data store of a software application of Gormley to include a visual depicting the user's financial goal progress, as taught by Page, in order to track more easily the user’s progress. (see Page, [0003-0005]) Regarding claim 15: it is similar scope to claim 7 and thus it is rejected under similar rationale. Regarding claim 16: it is similar scope to claim 8, and thus it is rejected under similar rationale . Conclusion The prior art made of record but not relied upon herein but pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure is listed in the enclosed PTO-892. 07-39 AIA 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 extension fee 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 YONG S PARK whose telephone number is (571)272-8349. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00-5:00 PM, EST. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bennett M. Sigmond can be reached on (303)297-4411. 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. /YONGSIK PARK/Examiner, Art Unit 3694 June 8, 2026 /BENNETT M SIGMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3694 Application/Control Number: 18/915,779 Page 2 Art Unit: 3694 Application/Control Number: 18/915,779 Page 3 Art Unit: 3694 Application/Control Number: 18/915,779 Page 4 Art Unit: 3694 Application/Control Number: 18/915,779 Page 5 Art Unit: 3694 Application/Control Number: 18/915,779 Page 6 Art Unit: 3694 Application/Control Number: 18/915,779 Page 7 Art Unit: 3694 Application/Control Number: 18/915,779 Page 8 Art Unit: 3694 Application/Control Number: 18/915,779 Page 9 Art Unit: 3694 Application/Control Number: 18/915,779 Page 10 Art Unit: 3694 Application/Control Number: 18/915,779 Page 11 Art Unit: 3694 Application/Control Number: 18/915,779 Page 12 Art Unit: 3694 Application/Control Number: 18/915,779 Page 13 Art Unit: 3694 Application/Control Number: 18/915,779 Page 14 Art Unit: 3694 Application/Control Number: 18/915,779 Page 15 Art Unit: 3694 Application/Control Number: 18/915,779 Page 16 Art Unit: 3694 Application/Control Number: 18/915,779 Page 17 Art Unit: 3694 Application/Control Number: 18/915,779 Page 18 Art Unit: 3694 Application/Control Number: 18/915,779 Page 19 Art Unit: 3694 Application/Control Number: 18/915,779 Page 20 Art Unit: 3694 Application/Control Number: 18/915,779 Page 21 Art Unit: 3694
Prosecution Insights