DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to the claims filed 06/03/2026.
Claims 1-17 have been examined.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of prior-filed application 63/732,995 under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) is acknowledged and granted.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 03/11/2026 has been received, considered as indicated, and placed on record in the file.
Election / Restrictions
Applicant’s election with traverse of Group I (Claims 1-17) in the reply filed on 06/03/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “The Examiner has not provided any evidence that Claims 1-17 and Claims 18-20 require separate classification, a separate status in the art, or a different field of search. The Examiner has therefore not met the requirements for demonstrating serious burden in examining both Claims 1-17 and Claims 18-20". This is not found persuasive because the examiner restricted the claims because the cited claims were Distinct Products or Distinct Processes. As claimed the restricted claims are distinct since: the inventions as claimed Deficit Detected and Target Savings have a materially different function, are mutually exclusive, and are not obvious variants. Furthermore, the applicant’s traverse does not dispute the examiner’s findings that the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of financial management for multi-user budgeting without significantly more.
Subject Matter Eligibility Standard
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, 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, 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, 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) as provided by the interim guidelines FR 12/16/2014 Vol. 79 No. 241.
Analysis
Step 1, the claimed invention must be to one of the four statutory categories. 35 U.S.C. 101 defines the four categories of invention that Congress deemed to be the appropriate subject matter of a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter. In this case independent claim 1 and 16 and all claims which depend from it are directed toward a method. As such, all claims fall within one of the four categories of invention deemed to be the appropriate subject matter.
Step 2A Prong 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 2019 PEG.
Specifically, claim 1 comprises inter alia the functions or steps of “A method comprising: accessing a first financial statement of a first user of a first authority level, the first financial statement defining a first set of expenses initiated by the first user during a first time period; extracting a first set of language signals from the first financial statement; based on the first set of language signals: identifying a first set of discretionary expenses in the first set of expenses; and identifying a first set of non-discretionary expenses in the first set of expenses; based on the first set of discretionary expenses and the first set of non-discretionary expenses, predicting a first budget deficit within a second time period succeeding the first time period; and in response to the first budget deficit falling within a first deficit range: identifying a first discretionary expense, in the first set of discretionary expenses, corresponding to the first budget deficit based on the first set of language signals; generating a first electronic notification describing the first budget deficit and the first discretionary expense; transmitting the first electronic notification to the first user; and transmitting the first electronic notification to a second user affiliated with the first user, the second user of a second authority level exceeding the first authority level”.
Claim 16 comprises inter alia the functions or steps of “A method comprising: during a first time period: accessing a first financial statement of a first user, the first financial statement comprising a first set of expenses initiated by the first user; based on the first set of expenses, predicting a first budget deficit occurring during the first time period; and in response to the first budget deficit falling within a first deficit range: identifying a first set of discretionary expenses, in the first set of expenses, corresponding to the first budget deficit based on a first set of language signals extracted from the first financial statement; generating a first electronic notification describing the first budget deficit and the first set of discretionary expenses; and transmitting the first electronic notification to a second user affiliated with the first user; andduring a second time period succeeding the first time period: accessing a second financial statement of the first user, the second financial statement comprising a second set of expenses initiated by the first user; based on the second set of expenses, predicting a first budget surplus during the second time period; and in response to predicting the first budget surplus: generating a second electronic notification describing the first budget surplus and excluding description of the second set of expenses; and transmitting the second electronic notification to the second user”.
Those claim limits in bold are identified as claim limitations which recite the abstract idea, while those that are un-bolded are identified as additional elements.
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 at least one processor. Financial management for multi-user budgeting 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, Next, 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 claims contain the following additional elements: transmitting; electronic. However, the specification description of the additional elements transmitting ([0022-0023]); electronic (the examiner interprets this term to infer a programmed general purpose computer performing steps) are at a high level of generality using exemplary language or as part of a generic technological environment and are functions any general purpose computer performs such that it amount 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 at least one processor. 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, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more that the abstract idea(s). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the abstract idea(s) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exaction using a generic computer component. Mere instruction to apply an exertion using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. These generic computer components are claimed at a high level of generality to perform their basic functions which amount to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the particular technological environment of field of use (Specification as cited above for additional elements) and further see insignificant extra-solution activity MPEP § 2106.05 I. A. iii, 2106.05(b), 2106.05(b) III, 2106.05(g). Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
As for dependent claims 2-15, and 17 these claims recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea using previously identified additional elements noted from the respective independent claims from which they depend. Therefore, the cited dependent claims are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Prior Art
Claims 14 and 15 overcome the prior art of record such that none of the cited prior art reference’s disclosures can be applied to form the basis of a 35 USC § 102 rejection nor can they be combined to fairly suggest in combination, the basis of a 35 USC § 103 rejection when the limitations are read in the particular environment of the claims. Therefore, the claims may be allowable if amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
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 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 1-3, and 6-13, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biala (PGPub Document No. 20240273619) in view of Cummings (PGPub Document No. 20220383417).
As per claim 1, Biala teaches a method ([Abstract] [claim1]) comprising: accessing a first financial statement of a first user of a first authority level, the first financial statement defining a first set of expenses initiated by the first user during a first time period ([0047] “…bank 406 may interact with the website 404 (e.g., retrieve purchase information, receive purchase data, etc.)…”); extracting a first set of language signals from the first financial statement ([0047] “…bank 406 may interact with the website 404 (e.g., retrieve purchase information, receive purchase data, etc.)…”); based on the first set of language signals: based on the first set of discretionary expenses and the first set of non-discretionary expenses, predicting a first budget deficit within a second time period succeeding the first time period
([0054] “The technique 500 includes an operation 510 to predict, using a model, a future amount of money in the monetary account. The prediction may be based on past transactions ( e.g., income), likely future income or costs (e.g., supplied by a user), a projection of a retirement or savings account, or the like” [0086]); and in response to the first budget deficit falling within a first deficit range (threshold [0035]): identifying a first discretionary expense, in the first set of discretionary expenses, corresponding to the first budget deficit based on the first set of language signals;generating a first electronic notification describing the first budget deficit and the first discretionary expense; transmitting the first electronic notification to the first user; and transmitting the first electronic notification to a second user affiliated with the first user, the second user of a second authority level exceeding the first authority level ([0036] “…For example, a suggested action may include a suggestion to the first user to contribute an amount of money to the subaccount 232 that matches a deficit between the subaccount 232 and the subaccount 234. In another example, a suggested action may include a suggestion to the first user to request a donation from the second user based on a deficit between the subaccount 232 and the subaccount 234. A suggested action may include a suggestion to the first user to donate money to the subaccount 234 based on a deficit between the subaccount 232 and the subaccount 234. In an example, the suggested action may include a suggestion to pool the subaccounts 232 and 234 (e.g., in subaccount 230) based on a determination that a goal has been reached. A suggestion may include to book the trip, for example when a threshold is met (for one or all accounts)…” [0042] [0066-0068] [0080-0081]).
Biala further teaches identifying a first set of expenses in the first set of expenses ([0047] “…bank 406 may interact with the website 404 (e.g., retrieve purchase information, receive purchase data, etc.)…” [0048] “…bank 406 may use historical user data and the interest board 408 or the interest board collection 416 to make a recommendation. For example, historical financial data for the user 402 may show that the user 402 eats out 3 times a week for lunch. When a week is completed where the user 402 only ate out twice or once or none, then the money normally spent on three lunches (minus what was spent) may be placed into a savings account corresponding to a product to be purchased…”). However, Biala does not explicitly categorize the expenses as discretionary and non-discretionary.
Cummings teaches identifying a first set of discretionary expenses in the first set of expenses and identifying a first set of non-discretionary expenses in the first set of expenses ([0060] “…discretionary items ( e.g., activities, cable, clubs, dining, electronics, entertainment, fitness, gifts, hobbies, luxuries, sports, subscriptions, travel, vacations, etc.)…” [0146] “…User data parameters may include, but are not limited to, user profile, financial goals, investment objectives, time horizon, risk tolerance, income estimates, financial accounts, cost of living, discretionary items, healthcare estimates, insurance costs, leases and loans, legal costs, life events, maintenance costs, professional services, and taxes” [0329] “…non-discretionary expenses…17) Modest
non-discretionary and discretionary expenses,… ” ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the categorization of expenses as found in Cummings with the expense list of Biala because non-discretionary spending covers essential costs and fixed bills you must pay to survive and maintain your obligations (your "needs"), whereas discretionary spending covers optional, lifestyle-driven purchases and services you can cut back on without severe consequences to your basic standard of living (your "wants"). The claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 2,
Biala teaches the method of Claim 1: wherein predicting the first budget deficit comprises predicting the first budget deficit within a first financial account associated with the first user; and further comprising: accessing a second financial statement (second savings account) of the first user, the second financial statement comprising a second set of expenses initiated by the first user during a second time period succeeding the first time period; extracting a second set of language signals from the second financial statement; based on the second set of language signals: identifying a second set of discretionary expenses in the second set of expenses; and identifying a second set of non-discretionary expenses in the second set of expenses; based on the second set of discretionary expenses and the second set of non-discretionary expenses, predicting a second budget deficit within a third time period succeeding the second time period, the second budget deficit within the first financial account; and in response to the second budget deficit falling within a second deficit range less than the first deficit range: generating a prompt to transfer a financial amount from a second financial account, associated with the first user, into the first financial account, the financial amount corresponding to the second budget deficit; and transmitting the prompt to the first user (Note that the label of a “second” or “first” with respect to structural elements does not impart functional limitations of the claims. However, the prior does indicate the use of two distinct accounts which meet the claim limitations. [0047] “…bank 406 may interact with the website 404 (e.g., retrieve purchase information, receive purchase data, etc.)…” [0036] “…For example, a suggested action may include a suggestion to the first user to contribute an amount of money to the subaccount 232 that matches a deficit between the subaccount 232 and the subaccount 234. In another example, a suggested action may include a suggestion to the first user to request a donation from the second user based on a deficit between the subaccount 232 and the subaccount 234. A suggested action may include a suggestion to the first user to donate money to the subaccount 234 based on a deficit between the subaccount 232 and the subaccount 234. In an example, the suggested action may include a suggestion to pool the subaccounts 232 and 234 (e.g., in subaccount 230) based on a determination that a goal has been reached. A suggestion may include to book the trip, for example when a threshold is met (for one or all accounts)…” [0042] [0066-0068] [0080-0081]).
As per claim 3,
Biala teaches the method of Claim 2, further comprising: accessing a total amount of funds present in the second financial account; and in response to the total amount of funds falling below the financial amount of the second budget deficit: generating a request to transfer funds from a third financial account, associated with the second user, into the first financial account associated with the first user; generating a second electronic notification describing the second budget deficit and comprising the request; and transmitting the second electronic notification to the second user ([0036] “…For example, a suggested action may include a suggestion to the first user to contribute an amount of money to the subaccount 232 that matches a deficit between the subaccount 232 and the subaccount 234. In another example, a suggested action may include a suggestion to the first user to request a donation from the second user based on a deficit between the subaccount 232 and the subaccount 234. A suggested action may include a suggestion to the first user to donate money to the subaccount 234 based on a deficit between the subaccount 232 and the subaccount 234. In an example, the suggested action may include a suggestion to pool the subaccounts 232 and 234 (e.g., in subaccount 230) based on a determination that a goal has been reached. A suggestion may include to book the trip, for example when a threshold is met (for one or all accounts)…” [0042] [0066-0068] [0080-0081]).
As per claim 6,
The limits of this claim are rejected using the same prior art and rationale as previously addressed in Claim 1. Note that the label of a “second” or “first” with respect to structural elements does not impart functional limitations of the claims. However, the prior does indicate variable time frame ([0019]) which meet the claim limitations.
As per claim 7,
Biala teaches the method of Claim 1, further comprising during an initial time period preceding the first time period: accessing a record of financial statements affiliated with the first user; generating a recommendation for a set of privacy settings (custodial users / parent-child / permissions) based on the record;transmitting the recommendation to the second user for review; and in response to receiving confirmation of the recommendation, storing the set of privacy settings in a user profile associated with the first user ([0013] [0034] [0036] [0040] [0065]).
As per claim 8,
Biala teaches the method of Claim 1: further comprising, in response to the first budget deficit falling within the first deficit range, generating a request to transfer funds from a first financial account, associated with the second user, into a second financial account associated with the first user; and wherein generating the first electronic notification describing the first budget deficit and the first non-discretionary expense comprises generating the first electronic notification describing the first budget deficit and the first non-discretionary expense and comprising the request ([0036] “…For example, a suggested action may include a suggestion to the first user to contribute an amount of money to the subaccount 232 that matches a deficit between the subaccount 232 and the subaccount 234. In another example, a suggested action may include a suggestion to the first user to request a donation from the second user based on a deficit between the subaccount 232 and the subaccount 234. A suggested action may include a suggestion to the first user to donate money to the subaccount 234 based on a deficit between the subaccount 232 and the subaccount 234. In an example, the suggested action may include a suggestion to pool the subaccounts 232 and 234 (e.g., in subaccount 230) based on a determination that a goal has been reached. A suggestion may include to book the trip, for example when a threshold is met (for one or all accounts)…” [0042] [0066-0068] [0080-0081]).
As per claim 9,
The limits of this claim are rejected using the same prior art and rationale as previously addressed in Claims 1, 7, and 9.
As per claim 10,
Biala teaches the method of Claim 1, further comprising: during a second time period: accessing a second financial statement of the first user, the second financial statement comprising a second set of expenses initiated by the first user during the second time period; extracting a second set of language signals from the second financial statement; based on the second set of language signals: identifying a second set of discretionary expenses in the second set of expenses; and identifying a second set of non-discretionary expenses in the second set of expenses; based on the second set of discretionary expenses and the second set of non-discretionary expenses, predicting a first budget surplus (threshold is met) within a third time period succeeding the second time period; and in response to predicting the first budget surplus: generating a second electronic notification describing the first budget surplus; and transmitting the second electronic notification to the second user ([0027] “…The savings goal subaccount 216 may include an automatic transfer feature. For example, an automatic transfer may occur from the general interest board savings account 214 when that account has over a threshold amount of money, or on a particular date. In another example, an automatic transfer from the savings goal subaccount 216 may occur when the savings goal is reached (e.g., to a long term savings account, to another financial instrument such as a certificate of deposit, bonds, stocks, mutual funds, exchange traded funds, cryptocurrency, etc.)” [0029] “…a recommendation may be provided to consider making a purchase when an account reaches a threshold (e.g., a user selected amount of money in the account)…”).
As per claim 11,
Biala teaches the method of Claim 10, wherein generating the second electronic notification describing the first budget surplus comprises generating the second electronic notification describing the first budget surplus and excluding description of the second set of expenses ([0027] “…The savings goal subaccount 216 may include an automatic transfer feature. For example, an automatic transfer may occur from the general interest board savings account 214 when that account has over a threshold amount of money, or on a particular date. In another example, an automatic transfer from the savings goal subaccount 216 may occur when the savings goal is reached (e.g., to a long term savings account, to another financial instrument such as a certificate of deposit, bonds, stocks, mutual funds, exchange traded funds, cryptocurrency, etc.)” [0029] “…a recommendation may be provided to consider making a purchase when an account reaches a threshold (e.g., a user selected amount of money in the account)…”).
As per claim 12,
The limits of this claim are rejected using the same prior art and rationale as previously addressed in Claim 1, 7, 11.
As per claim 13,
Biala teaches the method of Claim 1: wherein accessing the financial statement comprises accessing the financial statement via a first instance of a user portal (website) accessed by a first computing device associated with the first user; and wherein transmitting the first electronic notification to the second user comprises transmitting the first electronic notification to the second user via a second instance of the user portal accessed by a second computing device associated with the second user ([0015]).
As per claim 16,
The limits of this claim are rejected using the same prior art and rationale as previously addressed in Claim 1 and 10.
As per claim 17,
The limits of this claim are rejected using the same prior art and rationale as previously addressed in Claim 2.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biala (PGPub Document No. 20240273619) in view of Cummings (PGPub Document No. 20220383417) in further view of Taylor (PGPub Document No. 20070168274).
As per claim 4,
Biala teaches the method of Claim 2: wherein generating the prompt to transfer funds from the second financial account into the first financial account comprises generating the prompt to transfer funds from the second financial account into the first financial account, the second financial account comprising a savings account;further comprising: accessing a target savings (purchase/savings goal) amount defined for the first user during the second time period ([0027] “…The general interest board savings account 214 is shown with a savings goal subaccount 216. The savings goal subaccount 216 may be used to reach a savings goal, for example according to an entry on the interest board…”); accessing a savings amount deposited into the savings account during the second time period ([0042] “…deficit between the first savings account and the second savings account…”); characterizing a difference between the target savings amount and the savings amount; in response to the second budget deficit exceeding the difference, assigning a penalty to the financial amount transferred from the savings account to the first financial account; (deficit [0042] [0027] “…an automatic transfer may occur from the general interest board savings account 214 when that account has over a threshold amount of money, or on a particular date …”);
Biala and Cummings do not teach the remaining claim limitations.
Taylor teaches appending the prompt with a notification describing the penalty; and wherein transmitting the prompt to the first user comprises transmitting the prompt, comprising the notification describing the penalty, to the first user ([0017] “…a secured credit card with overdraft protection of up to a fixed percentage of the balance accumulated within the sub-account…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the overdraft protection with a fixed percentage as found in Taylor with the account savings method of combined Biala and Cummings in order to meet the needs funding sources such as banks for the transfer of funds. The claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 5,
Biala and Cummings do not teach the claim limitations.
Taylor teaches The method of Claim 4, wherein assigning the penalty to the financial amount comprises assigning the penalty to the financial amount, the penalty defining a fixed percentage of the financial amount required for depositing into a retirement account affiliated with the first user ([0017] “…a secured credit card with overdraft protection of up to a fixed percentage of the balance accumulated within the sub-account…”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Gregory A Pollock whose telephone number is (571) 270-1465. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM - 4 PM.
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, Abhishek Vyas can be reached on 571 270-1836. 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.
/Gregory A Pollock/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691
06/16/2026
Prosecution Insights