DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Applicants application filing received on September 23, 2025. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are currently pending in the instant application. The application claims priority to U.S. Provisional application 63/698,344 filed on September 24, 2024.
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 § 112
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 1, 12, and 20 is/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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 states “facilitate a first interaction between the user and an MIPA model; and the MIPA model, wherein the MIPA model is configured to:”. The Examiner is unsure what the Applicant is trying to say with the limitation. The disclosure did not provide further clarification. The Examiner is aware it could be a typographical error. Appropriate correction is required.
Additionally, Claim 1 is indefinite as it’s not clear from the specification or the disclosure how the determination of second user data, and further determination based on the first and second user data is a financial status of the user. There does not appear to be clear detail or steps which enable one of skill in the art to determine how the second user data is able to provide any usable aspect or function when determining the financial status of the user.
Claims 12 and 20 contain relatively the same limitation and are therefore indefinite for the same reasoning.
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 (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-20 are directed to one of the four statutory classes of invention (e.g. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). The claims include a system or “apparatus”, method or “process”, or product or “article of manufacture” and is a system, method, and apparatus for personal advisor which constitutes a process (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified independent method Claim 12 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent system Claim X and product Claim Z. Claim Y recites the limitations of (abstract ideas highlighted in italics and additional elements highlighted in bold)
retrieving, by user data circuitry, first user data associated with a user, wherein the user is associated with a first living location;
retrieving, by external data circuitry, living location data associated with a set of living locations;
facilitating, by multimodal interactive personal advisor (MIPA) management circuitry, a first interaction between the user and an MIPA model;
extracting, by the MIPA model and based on the first interaction, a set of data features associated with the user;
determining, by the MIPA model and based on the set of data features, second user data;
determining, by the MIPA model and based on the first user data and the second user data, a financial status of the user;
determining, by the MIPA model and based on the living location data associated with the set of living locations and the financial status of the user, a second living location for the user; and
providing, by the MIPA management circuitry, an indication of the second living location to the user.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”. Receiving user data and living location data, using a model, extracting data features, determining second user data and financial status of the use, determining the living location and indicating a second living location recites a fundamental economic practice. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The personal advisor system in Claim 1 is just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The non-transitory computer-readable medium in Claim 20 appears to be just software. Claims 1 and 20 are also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract)
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as “Mental Processes”. Receiving user data and living location data, using a model, extracting data features, determining second user data and financial status of the use, determining the living location and indicating a second living location recites a concept performed in the human mind. But for the “data circuitry”, MIPA model” and “management circuitry” the claim encompasses collecting data of a first user including living location, extracting data features, determining a second user and financial data of a user and determining living location and providing a second living location using his/her mind and/or men and paper. The mere nominal recitation of generic circuitry and a personal advisor model does not take the claim out of the mental processes grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The personal advisor system in Claim 1 is just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The non-transitory computer-readable medium in Claim 20 appears to be just software. Claims 1 and 20 are also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite user data circuitry, external data circuity, MIPA model and MIPA management circuity (Claims 1 and 12) a processor (claim Y) and/or non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions executed by at least one processor (Claim 20). The computer hardware is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore claims 1, 12, and 20 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware 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. See Applicant’s specification para. [0028] about implementation using general purpose or special purpose computing devices (The term "user device," "enterprise computing device," or "computing device" refers to any one or all of programmable logic controllers (PLCs), programmable automation controllers (PACs), industrial computers, desktop computers, personal data assistants (PDAs), laptop computers, tablet computers, smart books, palm-top computers, personal computers, smartphones, wearable devices (such as headsets, smartwatches, or the like), embedded computers, and similar electronic devices equipped with at least a processor and any other physical components necessarily to perform the various operations described herein. Devices such as smartphones, laptop computers, tablet computers, and wearable devices may be generally referred to as mobile devices.) and MPEP 2106.05(f) where applying a computer as a tool is not indicative of significantly more. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus claims 1, 12, and 20 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims 2-11 and 13-19 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1 and 12 and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and/or Mental Processes and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. The dependent claims include steps or processes which are similar to that disclosed in MPEP 2106.05(d), (f), (g), and/or (h) which include activities and functions the courts have determined to be well-understood, routine, and conventional when claimed in a generic manner, or as insignificant extra solution activity, or as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception.
Claim 2 is covered by MPEP 2106.05(d) II. ii. Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims."); and
MPEP 2106.05(g)(3) iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
Claims 3-4 are similar to MPEP 2106.05(d) II. ii. Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.");
Claim 5 is covered by MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) v. Requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370-71, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1642 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
Claim 6 is directed to MPEP 2160.05(d) II. ii. Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims."); and iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log);
Claims 7 and 11 are equivalent to MPEP 2106.05 (f)(2) v. Requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370-71, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1642 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
Claim 8 a covered by MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) i. A commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983 (2014); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 64, 175 USPQ 673, 674 (1972); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
Claims 9 and 10 are covered MPEP 2106.05(d) II. iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log);
Claims 13-19 are duplicates of claims 2-8, respectively. Therefore, the claims 2-11 and 13-19 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1-20 are not patent-eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art generally refers to finical advising clients and associated methods and systems.
U.S. Publication 2019/0147366 A1 - Systems and methods are provided to implement intelligent recommendations to users by modeling user profiles through deep learning of multimodal user data. For example, a recommendation computing platform collects multimodal user data from a computing device of a registered user, wherein the multimodal user data include time-series data, unstructured textual data, and multimedia data. A first deep learning classification engine is utilized to extract features from the multimodal user data. A second deep learning classification engine is utilized to generate a profile of the registered user based on the extracted features. A deep recommendation classification engine is utilized to determine a recommendation for the registered user based on the profile of the registered user, wherein the recommendation identifies at least one additional registered user. The recommendation is presented to the registered user on the computing device of the registered user.
U.S. Publication 2021/0042674 A1 - A financial modelling system and method are disclosed. The system is configured to receive financial data of a user and a request comprising financial market data including at least one of current value or future value of at least one instrument, generic financial update request, or generic financial forecast request. An action priority list is generated based on the user financial data and the financial market data. A first action item from the action priority list is matched with at least two service providers for providing a service related to the at least first action item based on the user financial data and financial market data. On acceptance between the user and at least one service provider to initiate the service, transfer of at least a partial amount of an entire confirmed debt amount from a payment agent of the user into an accepted service provider payment agent is triggered.
U.S. Publication 2025/0285554 A1 - Various embodiments described hereby include components of a planning, advice, and execution (PAE) system configured to deliver an advice, planning, and attainment experience that focuses on understanding clients as human beings and what they want to accomplish with their life. The PAE system, or one or more components thereof, may operate to provide technology-based solutions that continuously sync financial objectives with aspirations and values through the many moments of life. These technology-based solutions may empower humans to make financial decisions and attain life objectives, big or small, simple or complex, that make a real and lasting impact on their lives and future generations.
U.S. Publication 2014/0136381 A1 - A computer implemented method and system for managing financial data (FD) in real time provides a financial management platform (FMP) that aggregates and categorizes FD from financial user accounts and generates an N-dimensional financial format (NDFF) to store and render the aggregated and categorized FD in a transformed and modifiably categorized configuration on a graphical user interface (GUI). The FMP computes current metrics using the aggregated and categorized FD. The FMP dynamically adapts the current metrics to reflect changes caused by user interactions with interactive components and visualizations of the rendered FD in the NDFF on the GUI. The FMP generates dynamic real-time financial projections based on the computed and adapted current metrics and configurable parameters. A business intelligence platform integrated with the FMP provides real-time access of FMP FD and computations to third parties for analysis, real-time adaptation of business decisions, and financial regulation and monitoring of financial institutions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DYLAN C WHITE whose telephone number is (571)272-1406. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00 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, Beth Boswell can be reached at (571)272-6737. 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.
/DYLAN C WHITE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625 September 19, 2026
