DETAILED ACTION
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 .
This is the Non-Final Office Action in response to the Application filed on July 09, 2025, title: “System And Method For Financial Health Robo-Advisor”.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application and have been examined.
Priority
This application was filed on 07/09/2025 and is a CON of US Application No. 18/054,300 filed on 11/10/2022 (Patented No. 12,361,480) and claims no priority of any foreign application. For the purpose of examination, the 11/10/2022 is considered to be the effective filing data.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/09/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner. A copy of the US PTO-1449 form with the examiner’s initials is enclosed to this Office Action.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of US Patent No. 12,361,480. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the Application are generic to all that is recited in the claims of the Patent. That is, the claims of the Patent fall entirely within the scope of the claims of the Application or, in other words, the claims of the Application are anticipated by the claims of the Patent. The examined claims are broader and would be anticipated by the reference claims. The examined claims recite substantially the same limitations as the reference claims in the Patent with minor variations that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The Application and the Patent are directed to the same invention (a method of automated advising a user for financial health), have the same inventors, and are commonly owned. Therefore, this rejection is deemed necessary.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Under the 2019 Revised PEG, Step 1 analysis, the claims are reviewed to determine whether they fall within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or combination of matter).
Claims 1-20 recite a method, computer program, and computer system for financial health robo-advisor as indicated by the title of the application. The claims are directed to a process, manufactured product, and machine. Therefore, the claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention (Step 1-Yes, the claims are statutory).
Step 2A Prong 1:
Under the 2019 Revised PEG, Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, the claims are reviewed to determine whether they recite a judicial exception by identifying if the claim limitations fall in one of the enumerated abstract idea groupings (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
Claim 1 recites a method, comprising:
receiving, via a processor, a financial health goal from a user, wherein the financial health goal does not include an investment goal;
training a machine learning model using historical peer transaction data and location data to identify spending patterns, wherein the training comprises:
preprocessing anonymized user transaction histories and associated location data as training input;
applying a selected machine learning algorithm to detect correlations between geographic locations and spending behaviors; and
generating a trained neural network that predicts purchase probabilities based on a geographic location;
monitoring, via a GPS system, one or more geographic locations of a user device;
detecting that the user device has entered a predefined geographic area;
inputting the geographic area data into the trained neural network to determine a probability of the user making a purchase that would impact the financial health goal; and
generating, via the trained neural network, a preventative alert when the probability exceeds a threshold value.
The above limitations (underlined), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a method of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g., a robo-advisor system comprising processors and memories, a machine learning (ML) model, and a trained neural network). More specifically, the claim recites Commercial or Legal Interactions including using a computer-based method for automated advising a user for financial health. The process, such as receiving data (financial health goal data from user), training a computer model (ML model), preprocessing data (anonymized user transaction histories and associated location data), applying a selected ML model to detect data (a selected ML algorithm to detect correlations between geographic locations and spending behaviors), generating a trained neural network to predict purchase probabilities based on a geographic location), monitoring data (geographic locations), detecting data (user device has entered a predefined geographic area), inputting data to determine data (the geographic area data into the trained neural network to determine a probability of making a purchase that would impact the financial health goal), and generating data (a preventive alert when exceeding a threshold value), corresponds to a method of organizing human activity, specially the business relations between a user and financial institution. This is a commercial interaction, and therefore, an abstract idea (i.e., agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities of behaviors; business relations).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a commercial interaction, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 17 recites a computer program and claim 19 recites a computer system with comparable elements and limitations as discussed in claim 1. The mere nominal recitation of computer components do not take the claims out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Therefore, these claims also recite an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong 1-Yes, the claims recite an abstract idea).
Step 2A Prong 2:
Under the 2019 Revised PEG, Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the claims are reviewed to determine whether the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) is integrated into a practical application. In order to make this determination, the additional element(s), or combination of elements, are analyzed to determine if the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.
Claims 1, 17, and 19 include the additional elements, such as a robo-advisor system comprising processors, memories with instructions, a ML model, and a trained neural network, all are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to implement the process. Applicant’s Specification does not describe how these computer elements are different from the general computer components (see paragraphs 15-26 and Figure 1 in Publication No. 2025/0335982). Thus, based on the limitations of the claims, Applicant’s claimed invention is merely implementing the abstract idea on a computer system and is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a computer and a database. The computer is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions of receiving/transmitting communications, processing information, querying the database) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong 2-No, the claims are not integrated into a practical application).
Step 2B:
Under the 2019 Revised PEG, Step 2B analysis, the claims are reviewed to determine whether the claims provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the claim(s) include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea)).
As noted in above, the claims (1, 17, and 19) as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the concept of automated advising for financial health based on the financial health goal input from a user, retrieving the financial health templates generated by the trained AI model, deriving a financial health advice action based on the output from the AI trained model, providing/monitoring to determine if the financial transactions are following the financial health advice action, and alerting the user based on the determination. All these generic computer functions are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry similar to those referenced by MPEP 2106.05(d) II.
The independent claims (1, 17, and 19) do not include additional elements, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, 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 element of using a computer to perform the receiving, training, preprocessing, applying, generating, monitoring, detecting, inputting, and generating functions as claimed amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the independent claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-16, 18, and 20 depend on independent claims 1, 17, and 18 respectively, and thus include all of the limitations and features of their independent claims. Therefore, the dependent claims are also directed to the same abstract idea as in claims 1, 17, and 18.
Claims 2, 18, and 20 recite additional elements “wherein historical peer transaction data comprises a financial health template having one or more financial peer success stories, wherein each financial peer success story of the one or more financial peer success stories comprises a success metric.” (Additional detailed instructions for the historical peer transaction data and financial peer success stories . These claims individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not provide an inventive concept to the abstract idea).
Claim 3 recites additional elements “wherein the success metric comprises an increase in credit score value metric, a percent reduction in discretionary spending metric, a percent reduction in total spending metric, a percent reduction in a category of spending metric, a savings goal amount metric, an emergency fund amount metric, a repayment of a loan amount metric, or a combination thereof.”. (Additional detailed instructions for the step of selecting a success metric. This claim individually or in combination with others does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not provide an inventive concept to the abstract idea).
Claim 4 recites additional elements “further comprising: training the trained neural network to identify one or more success patterns in the one or more financial peer transaction histories that are predictive of achieving one or more specific financial health goals by providing anonymized historical peer transaction data as training input; deriving, via the processor, a financial health advice action based on using a financial health goal as input to the trained neural network model; and providing a financial health advice action to a user based on an output of the trained neural network model.”. (Additional detailed instructions for the steps of training the trained neural network, deriving a financial health advice action, and providing a financial health advice. This claim individually or in combination with others does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not provide an inventive concept to the abstract idea).
Claim 5 recites additional elements “wherein training the trained neural network comprises using a training engine configured to receive the training input and to transform the training input into one or more features and a predictive engine configured to use the one or more features to generate criteria weightings used to generate an output prediction.”. (Additional detailed instructions training the trained neural network. This claim individually or in combination with others does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not provide an inventive concept to the abstract idea).
Claim 6 recites additional elements “wherein deriving the financial health advice action comprises increasing a credit score, reducing a discretionary spending, reducing a total spending, reducing a category of spending, achieving a savings goal amount, creating an emergency fund, repaying a loan, or a combination thereof, based on the output of the trained neural network model.”. (Additional detailed instructions for deriving the financial health advice action. This claim individually or in combination with others does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not provide an inventive concept to the abstract idea).
Claim 7 recites additional elements “wherein providing the financial health advice action comprises presenting a financial health plan comprising one or more financial transactions that have been derived by the trained neural network model.”. (Additional detailed instructions for the step of providing the financial health advice action. This claim individually or in combination with others does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not provide an inventive concept to the abstract idea).
Claim 8 recites additional elements “wherein the one or more financial transactions comprise a debt consolidation, a transfer of an account balance, a refinancing, a withdrawal of home equity, a selling of an asset, a purchase of an asset, taking out a loan, setting up of an automatic payment, a creation of a payment plan, making a payment at a certain schedule, maintaining an account balance at a certain amount, or a combination thereof.”. (Additional detailed instructions for the financial transactions. This claim individually or in combination with others does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not provide an inventive concept to the abstract idea).
Claim 9 recite additional elements “comprising receiving, via the processor, a customization data to customize a financial health plan included in the financial health advice.”. (Additional detailed instructions for the customization data. This claim individually or in combination with others does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not provide an inventive concept to the abstract idea).
Claim 10 recites additional elements “wherein the customization data comprises a modified value for: a debt consolidation amount, an amount to transfer from one account to another account, a refinancing amount, a withdrawal of home equity amount, a selling of an asset amount, a purchase of an asset amount, a loan amount, an amount for an automatic payment, an amount for a payment plan, an amount to maintain an account balance, or a combination thereof.”. (Additional detailed instructions for the customization data. This claim individually or in combination with others does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not provide an inventive concept to the abstract idea).
Claim 11 recites additional elements “comprising executing, via the processor, the financial health plan by processing a payment, setting up payment schedule, moving a balance from a first account into a second account, entering new loan information, soliciting a loan bid, or a combination thereof.”. (Additional detailed instructions for the financial health plan. This claim individually or in combination with others does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not provide an inventive concept to the abstract idea).
Claim 12 recites additional elements “comprising monitoring execution of the financial health plan by monitoring financial transactions, monitoring geographic data, or a combination thereof.”. (Additional detailed instructions for monitoring the execution of the financial health plant. This claim individually or in combination with others does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not provide an inventive concept to the abstract idea).
Claim 13 recite additional elements “wherein monitoring geographic data comprises determining that the user is at a location where the user has a probability exceeding a customized probability value of purchasing a good or a service.”. (Additional detailed instructions for monitoring the geographical data. This claim individually or in combination with others does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not provide an inventive concept to the abstract idea).
Claim 14 recites additional elements “comprising alerting the user when the monitoring of financial transactions, the monitoring of geographic data, or the combination thereof, determines that a purchase will exceed a purchase limit included in the financial health plan.”. (Additional detailed instructions for alerting the user. This claim individually or in combination with others does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not provide an inventive concept to the abstract idea).
Claim 15 recites additional elements “comprising offering a product or a service based on the monitoring of financial transactions, the monitoring of geographic data, or the combination thereof.”. (Additional detailed instructions for offering a product or a service. This claim individually or in combination with others does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not provide an inventive concept to the abstract idea).
Claim 16 recites additional elements “wherein offering the product or the service comprises retrieving the offering of the product or the service from a data store and stored in the data store by a financial health sponsor.”. (Additional detailed instruction for offering a product or a service. This claim individually or in combination with others does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not provide an inventive concept to the abstract idea).
The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. The dependent claims further describe the business relations of the certain method of organizing human activity (abstract idea) and do not include additional elements other than those of claims 1, 17, and 19 to provide a practical application or significantly more than the judicial exception. Each and every recited combination between the recited computing hardware and the recited computing functions has been considered. No non-generic or non-conventional arrangement is found. There is no inventive concept found in the claims. The claims do no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technical environment or field of use. Therefore, the dependent claims also are not patent eligible.
The focus of the claims is on utilizing a general computer for automated advising financial health based on the inputted financial health goals from a user. The claims are not directed to a new computer system, a processor, a system memory, or a user interface, nor do they provide a method of processing data that improves existing technological processes. The focus of the claimed invention is not on improving computer-related technology, but on an independently abstract idea that uses computers as tools. Accordingly, when viewed as a whole, the claims do no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. No inventive concept is found in the claims. Therefore, the claims do not add significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea (Step 2B-No, the claims are not significantly more than the abstract idea).
Conclusion
Claim 1-20 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAI TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7364. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9-5.
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, Christine M. Behncke can be reached at 571-272-8103. 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.
HAI TRAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3695
/HAI TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3695
Prosecution Insights