DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
1. This office action is in response to filing dated 11/15/2024.
2. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 .
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
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-18 are directed to a system; claim 19 is are directed to a method, claim 20 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium – each of which is one of the statutory categories of inventions.
Step 2A: A claim is eligible at revised Step 2A unless it recites a judicial exception and the exception is not integrated into a practical application of the application.
Prong 1: Prong One of Step 2A evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon).
Groupings of Abstract Ideas:
I. MATHEMATICAL CONCEPTS
A. Mathematical Relationships
B. Mathematical Formulas or Equations
C. Mathematical Calculations
II. CERTAIN METHODS OF ORGANIZING HUMAN ACTIVITY
A. Fundamental Economic Practices or Principles (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk)
B. Commercial or Legal Interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)
C. Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions between People (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
III. MENTAL PROCESSES.
Concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
See MPEP 2106.04 (a) (2) Abstract Idea Groupings [R-10.2019]
Independent claim 1, 19 and 20 are directed to – receiving information for a saving account of the user at a second financial institution; receiving user saving target information for the user wherein the user saving target information comprises: a saving rule for determining when to transfer funds from the funding source to the saving account wherein the saving rule is defined based on an amount spent by the user; receiving transaction information for a transaction by the user from a third financial institution, wherein the transaction information includes the amount spent by the user; and transferring money from the funding source to the saving account according to the saving rule based on the transaction information – that describes Fundamental Economic Practices and/or Commercial or Legal Interactions and thus fall under the abstract idea grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
The dependent claims merely limit the abstract idea to – generating and updating user profile comprising spending history, suggesting and implementing rule modification to achieve goal, obtaining marketplace information, updating goal, and using artificial intelligence to generate profile or suggest modification – that also constitute Fundamental Economic Practices and/or Commercial or Legal Interactions and hence are also abstract.
Hence under Prong One of Step 2A, claims 1-20 recite a judicial exception.
Prong 2: Prong Two of Step 2A evaluates whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application include:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field – see MPEP § 2106.05(a)
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine –see MPEP § 2106.05(b)
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing – see MPEP § 2106.05(c)
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception – see MPEP §2106.05(e)
Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application include:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) 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)
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception – see MPEP § 2106.05(g)
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP § 2106.05(h)
Additional elements recited by the claims, beyond the abstract idea, include: server, non-transitory computer readable storage medium, and processor. Examiner finds that any additional element(s), beyond the judicial exception, has been recited at a high level of generality such that the claim limitations amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant data gathering activities (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The combination of additional elements does not purport to improve the functioning of a computer or effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Instead, the additional elements do no more than “use the computer as a tool” and/or “link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.” The focus of the claims is not on improvement in computers, but on certain independently abstract ideas – receiving information for a saving account of the user at a second financial institution; receiving user saving target information for the user wherein the user saving target information comprises: a saving rule for determining when to transfer funds from the funding source to the saving account wherein the saving rule is defined based on an amount spent by the user; receiving transaction information for a transaction by the user from a third financial institution, wherein the transaction information includes the amount spent by the user; and transferring money from the funding source to the saving account according to the saving rule based on the transaction information – that merely uses generic computers as tools. Steps that do no more than spell out what it means to “apply it on a computer” cannot confer patent eligibility. Indeed, nothing in claim 1 improves the functioning of the computer, makes it operate more efficiently, or solves any technological problem. See Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1378, 1384-85 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
Hence, under Prong Two of Step 2A, the additional elements individually or in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Hence, the claims are ineligible under Step 2A.
Step 2B: In Step 2B, the evaluation consists of whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception.
As discussed in Prong Two, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components, which is insufficient to provide an inventive concept.
When considered individually or as an ordered combination, the additional elements fail to transform the abstract idea of – receiving information for a saving account of the user at a second financial institution; receiving user saving target information for the user wherein the user saving target information comprises: a saving rule for determining when to transfer funds from the funding source to the saving account wherein the saving rule is defined based on an amount spent by the user; receiving transaction information for a transaction by the user from a third financial institution, wherein the transaction information includes the amount spent by the user; and transferring money from the funding source to the saving account according to the saving rule based on the transaction information – into significantly more.
See MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception [R-10.2019].
(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Hence, the claims are ineligible under Step 2B.
Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 19, 20
Claims 1, 19, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(1)(1) as being anticipated by Ghosh et al. (US 2015/0134511 A1).
Claim 1:
A financial institution agnostic saving system comprising:
a server configured to:
receive information for a funding source of a user at a first financial institution;
(See Ghosh: Para [0096] (“funds are received in a customer payment account, such as a checking account, bill pay account or the like”)
receive information for a saving account of the user at a second financial institution;
(See Ghosh: Fig. 2; Para [0064] (“Additionally, the customer 110 may have a checking account 172, a bill pay account 174, a savings account 176 and another undefined account 178 with the second financial institution 170”), [0065])
receive user saving target information for the user wherein the user saving target information comprises:
(See Ghosh: Para [0058] (“The customer-defined account rules may include any rule that affects the management and/or funding of financial institution accounts, including, but not limited to, minimum account balances, maximum account balances, transfer account priorities and the like.”)
a saving rule for determining when to transfer funds from the funding source to the saving account wherein the saving rule is defined based on an amount spent by the user;
(See Ghosh: Para [0038] (“rules that maximize the customer's rate of return and/or minimizing the likelihood of insufficient funding of an account leading to a withdrawal in excess of account balance”)
receive transaction information for a transaction by the user from a third financial institution, wherein the transaction information includes the amount spent by the user; and
(See Ghosh: Fig. 2; Para [0064] (“Further, the customer may have a checking account 182, a bill pay account 184, a savings account 186, a money market account 188 and another undefined account 190 with the Nth financial institution.”), [0065])
transfer money from the funding source to the saving account according to the saving rule based on the transaction information.
(See Ghosh: Para [0083] (“initiate automatic transfer of funds from the customer-defined transfer account to the minimum balance account”)
Claims 19, 20 are similar to claim 1 and hence rejected on similar grounds.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claims 2-14, 17
Claims 2-14, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ghosh et al. (US 2015/0134511 A1) in view of Hangartner et al. (US 2012/0059751 A1).
Claim 2:
Ghosh describes but does not specifically teach:
“wherein the server is further configured to determine whether to suggest a modification to the user saving target information.”
However, Hangartner teaches the above limitation. (See Hangartner: Para [0094] (“provide the user with the means and opportunity to adjust the goals”), [0097] (“If it is determined a subgoal has been met or a goal completed, the user may be offered incentives to induce the user to continue to attempt to achieve the goals”))
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to modify Ghosh as it relates to linked financial account management to include Hangartner as it relates to managing and allocating funds. The motivation for combining the references would have been to maximize customer’s rate of return in accordance with customer preferences.
Claim 3:
wherein the user saving target information comprises a savings goal and a target date, and wherein the server is configured to:
generate a user profile of the user wherein the user profile comprises a spending history;
(See Ghosh: Para [0058] (“purchasing/debit history and the like”)
calculate a target goal achievement date based on the savings goal, the savings rule, and the user profile; and
(See Hangartner: Para [0041] (“Date Focused Goal”)
determine whether to suggest a modification to the user saving target information based on the target goal achievement date.
(See Ghosh: Para [0058] (“customer's current account, account funding history, purchasing/debit history and the like”)
(See Hangartner: Para [0051] (“modify the allocations”)
Claim 4:
wherein if the target date predates the target goal achievement date, the server is configured to modify the saving rule such that, based on the spending history, the user will achieve the saving goal on or before the target date.
(See Hangartner: Para [0073], [0078], [0097])
Claim 5:
wherein the saving system comprises a marketplace;
(See Hangeartner: Para [0097] (“businesses that have partnered with the savings account”)
wherein the server is configured to obtain marketplace information from the marketplace;
determine whether to suggest a modification to the user saving target information based on the marketplace information.
(See Hangartner: Para [0073], [0078], [0097] (“other users”)
Claim 6:
wherein the marketplace information comprises information relating to user saving target information of other users.
(See Hangartner: Para [0097])
Claim 7:
wherein the saving target information comprises a savings goal; and
wherein the marketplace information comprises information related to the saving goal.
(See Hangartner: Para [0097])
Claim 8:
wherein the saving target information further comprises a target date; and wherein the marketplace information comprises information relating to the target date.
(See Hangartner: Para [0097])
Claim 9:
wherein the server is configured to implement the suggested modification.
(See Hangartner: Para [0060], [0063])
Claim 10:
wherein the server is configured to update the saving target information after implementing the modification.
(See Hangartner: Para [0060], [0063])
Claim 11:
wherein the server is configured obtain new transaction information and update the user profile after determining whether to suggest the modification.
(See Hangartner: Para [0074], [0075])
Claim 12:
wherein the server is configured determine whether to send a modification suggestion after updating the user profile.
(See Hangartner: Para [0056], [0066], [0073], [0078])
Claim 13:
wherein the server is configured determine whether to send a modification suggestion after updating the saving target information.
(See Hangartner: Para [0056], [0066], [0073], [0078])
Claim 14:
wherein the determination is based on the target goal achievement date, aggregated user data, and marketplace information.
(See Hangartner: Para [0019] (“account data aggregation module”)
Claim 17:
wherein the user profile is generated using an artificial intelligence model utilizing the user profile and aggregated user data based on activity of other users.
(See Ranft: Para [0079] (“generate a profile of a consumer”)
Claims 15, 16, 18
Claims 15, 16, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ghosh et al. (US 2015/0134511 A1) in view of Hangartner et al. (US 2012/0059751 A1) further in view of Ranft (US 2016/0232546 A1).
Claim 15:
The combination of Ghosh and Hangartner describes but does not specifically teach:
“wherein the suggested modification is based on an artificial intelligence model utilizing the user profile and aggregated user data based on activity of other users.”
However, Ranfit teaches the above limitation:
(See Ranft: Para [0010] (“applying a machine learning process to cluster and group profiles of consumers and products, and matching the profiles to products”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to modify the combination of Ghosh + Hangartner to include Ranft as it relates to consumer financial product information. The motivation for combining the references would have been to optimize user’s savings.
Claim 16:
wherein the suggested modification is based on an artificial intelligence model utilizing the user profile and marketplace information.
(See Ranft: Para [0010] (“applying a machine learning process to cluster and group profiles of consumers and products, and matching the profiles to products”)
Claim 18:
wherein the saving system further comprises a marketplace;
(See Hantgartner: Para [0097])
wherein the server is configured to:
generate a user profile of the user wherein the user profile comprises a spending history;
(See Ghosh: Para [0058] (“purchasing/debit history and the like”)
calculate a target goal achievement date based on the savings goal, the savings rule, and the user profile;
(See Hangartner: Claim 1)
obtain marketplace information from the marketplace, wherein the marketplace information comprises information relating to activity of other users;
(See Hantgartner: Para [0097])
information relating to the saving goal; and information relating to the target date;
(See Hangartner: Claim 5)
determine whether to suggest a modification to the user saving target information based on the marketplace information, target goal achievement date, and aggregated user data;
(See Hantgartner: Para [0078])
update the saving target information after implementing the modification;
(See Hangartner: Para [0060], [0063])
obtain new transaction information and update the user profile after determining whether to suggest the modification;
determine whether to send a modification suggestion after updating the user profile;
(See Hangartner: Para [0056], [0066], [0073], [0078])
determine whether to send a modification suggestion after updating the saving target information;
wherein the suggested modification is based on an artificial intelligence model utilizing the user profile and aggregated user data based on activity of other users, the user profile, and marketplace information;
(See Ranft: Para [0010] (“applying a machine learning process to cluster and group profiles of consumers and products, and matching the profiles to products”)
wherein the user profile is generated using an artificial intelligence model utilizing the user profile and aggregated user data based on activity of other users; and
(See Ranft: Para [0010] (“applying a machine learning process to cluster and group profiles of consumers and products, and matching the profiles to products”)
wherein the server is configured to transfer money from the funding source to the saving account according to the saving rule based on the transaction information only if a condition of the transaction amount and a restriction on the minimum amount in the funding source are met.
(See Ghosh: Para [0017] (“minimum balance limit is met”)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARUNAVA CHAKRAVARTI whose telephone number is (571)270-1646. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM - 5 PM 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, Ryan Donlon can be reached on 571-270-3602. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ARUNAVA CHAKRAVARTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693