DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
This action is in response to Applicant’s filing on Aug. 11, 2026, and is made Final. This action is being examined by James H. Miller, who is in the eastern time zone (EST), and who can be reached by email at James.Miller1@uspto.gov or by telephone at (469) 295-9082.
Interviews
Interviews are “indispensable to advance the prosecution of a patent application.” MPEP § 713. Accordingly, the following Examiner’s guidance and suggested workflow maximizes this benefit to Applicant by: (1) avoiding back and forth telephone calls for scheduling, (2) permitting Examiner out-of-office notifications to the Applicant when emailing the agenda, and (3) permitting real-time document collaboration and screen sharing.
Interviews are available by telephone or, preferably, by video conferencing using the USPTO’s web-based collaboration platform. Applicants are strongly encouraged to schedule via the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) portal at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If an interview is needed more quickly than permitted by the AIR scheduling tool, note this in the AIR remarks for consideration. The Examiner routinely considers such urgent requests when practicable.
An agenda submitted when filing the AIR is strongly encouraged, because Examiners use agendas when determining whether to grant an interview. The AIR has character limits, so send the agenda contemporaneously to James.Miller1@uspto.gov and reference the AIR.
After-Final Interviews Requests are granted only at the Examiner’s discretion and only if disposal or clarification for appeal may be accomplished with only nominal further consideration. MPEP § 713.09. An advance agenda explaining how the interview advances prosecution—e.g., through targeted arguments, identified Examiner error, or proposed claim amendments—is strongly suggested.
For GRANTED requests, expect an email within two (2) business days confirming a date/time slot and collaboration tool access instructions. For DENIED requests, the record will include an explanation for the denial.
The examiner is generally available for interviews, Monday through Friday, 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. ET.
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 Status
The status of claims is as follows:
Claims 1, 2, 5–9, and 21–31 are pending and examined with Claims 1 and 23 in independent form.
Claims 1 and 23 are presently amended.
Claims 32 and 33 are presently cancelled.
No Claims are presently added.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's Amendment has been reviewed against Applicant’s Specification filed Nov. 2, 2016, [“Applicant’s Specification”] and accepted for examination. No new matter was entered.
The objection to the claim as previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed May 12, 2026, [Non-Final Office Action"] is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. § 101 Argument
Preliminary Matter: Examiner notes that Applicant’s Reply does not present an argument under Step 2A, Prong Two. The Reply identifies “Step 2A, Prong 1” (Reply at 10) but only describes the Step 2B “inventive concept” standard and concludes that “Step 2B analysis provided herein results in the answer being Yes.” Because Applicant has not identified in Examiner’s Step 2A findings are required by 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(b), the identification of the abstract idea and the Prong Two determination (Non-Final Act. at 10–13) are unrebutted and are maintained. Applicant’s arguments are treated by the Examiner as solely directed to Step 2B and addressed below.
Applicant argues that the Examiner mischaracterized claim elements as part of the abstract idea that should have been considered as additional elements. Specifically, using Claim 1 a representative, the “receiving,” “obtaining,” “performing,” “validating,” “rejecting”(x4) (amended limitations), “obtaining,” “accessing,” “automatically prefilling,” and “transmitting” limitations are additional elements and not part of the recited abstract idea of “sales activities or behaviors, and business relations” identified by the Examiner. Evaluated properly, these additional elements, now including the four amended “validating” (“rejecting”) steps are elements “beyond” the judicial exception that furnish an inventive concept under Step 2B, leaving only the “performing a credit prescreen on the user specific information” as the abstract idea. Applicant’s Reply at 10–11.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claimed invention when considered as a whole, is directed to the abstract idea of collecting user identification information, searching records to retrieve personal data, validating the retrieved account records against fraud business rules, and using that data to generate a new credit account, a process that is entirely a commercial interaction under the organizing human activity exception regardless whether individual subsets are labeled as additional elements (technical elements). Claim 1’s recitation of automated database searching, account validation, field population, credit prescreening, terms acceptance, and account generation collectively describe a credit application workflow, which is a longstanding commercial practice, and the individual steps cannot be divorced from the overall character simply by asserting they are not sales activities because they are in furtherance of the abstract idea. The Specification confirms this characterization by teaching that the invention “address[es] a business challenge, the loss of credit applications due to key fatigue,” (Spec. ¶ 22) and describes the validation steps as “fraud mitigation business rules.” Spec. ¶ 42. Applicant’s Reply simply re-labels claim limitations as “additional elements” without explaining why any of them is other than a step of a commercial credit application process. Mere attorney assertion unsupported by analysis is not persuasive. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(II)(B). Even accepting Applicant’s characterization that the abstract idea exception is limited to the claim’s recitation of “performing a credit prescreen on the user specific information,” the remaining elements would merely need to be evaluated under Step 2B to determine whether they are significantly more. Under Step 2B, the identified steps that Applicant asserts are “additional elements” are well understood, routine, and conventional computer functions that do not, alone or in combination, amount to significantly more, as evidenced by Applicant’s own disclosure and four references of record, Non-Final Act. at 14–16, none of which Applicant addresses. The only elements of Claim 1 that are not themselves part of the credit application process (i.e., the abstract idea) are the storage medium, instructions, computer system, mobile device, message, and private database, each of which the Specification describes is generic, exemplary terms. Spec. ¶¶ 23, 37, 95–99, 103.
Applicant argues the amended claims now recite a specific manner of validating the existing accounts (i.e., rejecting any existing account (i) from a brand with an above threshold propensity for fraud, (ii) with a derogatory status, (iii) less than a week old, or (iv) subject to an address change within the past week, and that this amendment answer’s Examiner’s prior statement that the claims did not describe “how the validation of existing accounts is technically accomplished.” Applicants Reply at 11–12.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Enumerating specific account rejection criteria is an improvement over the prior claim language but listing business rules for which records to disregard does not constitute a technical improvement under MPEP § 2106.05(a). The claims still do not describe how the system resolves a full consumer identity from the device identifier and user identifier inputs, how any computer determines a brand’s “propensity for fraud” or compares it to a threshold, how account age, status, or address change history is detected, or how the identified fields are specifically populated with the electronic application architecture Reciting the content of data fields into a form or reciting the criteria by which a record is accepted or rejected is not equivalent to reciting a specific technical process for doing so. See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“merely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information, without more (such as identifying a particular tool for presentation), is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis.”)
The amendment identifies which accounts are rejected but not how a computer rejects them. The Specification itself characterizes these criteria as “fraud mitigation business rules” (Spec. ¶ 42) whose time windows are “controlled by internal parameter
and can be tightened, loosened or turned off” (Spec. ¶ 43), i.e., adjustable policy choices rather than any technical mechanism. Each of the four rejecting criteria was already analyzed in the Non-Final Office Action (at 21) as a mental process practically performed in the human mind because it requires only the comparison of two known data values (e.g., account open date versus one week; brand fraud propensity verses a threshold) or observation of a known account condition (derogatory status). Moving those limitations from former Claims 32, 33 into the Independent Claims does not change their character. A claim limitation that is itself an abstract idea cannot supply the practical application or inventive concept. MPEP § 2106.05(I); MPEP § 2106.04(d)(III). Additionally, Applicant’s argument is framed under Step 2B (Reply at 12) and identifies no improvement to the functioning of the computer or to any other technology under Step 2A, Prong Two. The record therefore contains no assertion, let alone evidence, that the validation rules improve computer functionality rather than the quality of the commercial decision being made.
Applicant argues that the added validation elements are not well understood routine and conventional (“WRC”) because they “provide specific steps with more granularity” and that under Berkheimer and MPEP § 2106.05(d), the fact that something is disclosed in the prior art or obvious does not establish that it is WRC. Applicant’s Reply at 12.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Berkheimer inquiry applies only to additional elements, and the four validation (rejecting) limitations are not additional elements. The four validation (rejecting) limitations are mental process comparisons and commercial fraud screening rule that are part of the abstract idea. Whether they are conventional is immaterial because the abstract idea itself cannot supply the inventive concept. MPEP § 2106.05(I); MPEP § 2106.04(d)(III); Non-Final Act. at 21. Applicant’s Reply misapprehends the law in this respect by treating the recited fraud rules as elements “beyond” the exception. Further, the Examiner’s WRC findings were not based on prior art disclosure alone but on the four categories of evidence permitted by MPEP § 2106.05(d), including Applicant’s own express statements (admissions) that the database, mobile device, and computer components are generic and exemplary (Spec. ¶¶ 16, 23, 37, 95–99, 103) and performed in any order (Spec. ¶ 15), together with four publications showing database driven for prefilling and credit prescreening to be widely prevalent. NON-Final Act. at 14–16. Applicant does not rebut any od this evidence. Further, “more granularity” is a conclusory assertion. Applicant does not offer any declaration, citation, or technical explanation showing that rejecting the account under a week old or with a derogatory status is unconventional and the Specification describes these rules as optional business settings that “can be tightened, loosened or turned off” Spec. ¶ 43. Even if validation steps were treated as additional elements, screening account records against age, status, and fraud risk criteria isa routine component of the longstanding commercial practice of credit underwriting and therefore WRC at the high level of generality claimed. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II).
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, 2, 5–9, and 21–31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Analysis
Step 1: Claims 1, 2, 5–9 and 21–31 are directed to a statutory category. Claims 1, 2, 5–9, 21, 22 recite “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” and are therefore directed to the statutory category of “an article of manufacture.” Claims 23–31 recite “a method” and are therefore, directed to the statutory category of “a process”.
Representative Claim
Claim 1 is representative [“Rep. Claim 1”] of the subject matter under examination and recites, in part, emphasis added by Examiner to identify limitations with normal font indicating the abstract idea exception, bold limitations indicating additional elements. Each limitation is identified by a letter for later use as a shorthand notation in referencing/describing each limitation. Portions of the claim use italics to identify intended use limitations and underline, as needed, in further describing the abstract idea exception:
[A] 1. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions embodied therein that when executed cause a computer system to perform a method comprising:
[B] receiving a message, the message being a response from a user to an incentive offer and including at least one user identifier provided by said user;
[C] obtaining from said message a device identifier associated with a user's mobile device;
[D] performing an automated search of a company's private database, using said device identifier and said user identifier, for user specific information, said search of said company's private database comprising:
[E] user specific information for customers having existing accounts with said company; and
[F] user specific information for previous applicants for an account from said company;
[F1] validating the existing accounts prior to utilizing said existing accounts to obtain said user specific information, where said validating comprises:
[F2] rejecting any of said existing accounts from a brand with an above threshold propensity for fraud;
[F3] rejecting any of said existing accounts with a derogatory status;
[F4] rejecting any of said existing accounts less than a week old; and
[F5] rejecting any of said existing accounts subject to an address change within a past week;
[G] obtaining said validated user specific information as a result of said search of said company’s private database,
[G1] said user specific information comprising at least two of: a name, a full address, a partial address, a driver's license number, and a social security number;
[H] performing a credit prescreen on the user specific information;
[I] accessing an electronic application for a credit account offer;
[J] automatically prefilling said user specific information comprising at least two of: said name, said full address, said partial address, said driver's license number, and said social security number into said electronic application to generate a user specific pre-populated electronic application for said credit account offer;
[K] transmitting said user specific pre-populated application form for said credit account offer to said user;
[L] receiving from said user a verification of said user specific information contained in said user specific pre-populated electronic application for said credit account offer in conjunction with additional identification data input by said user;
[M] transmitting a terms and conditions information to said user;ADS-133Serial No.: 15/341,988
[N] Examiner: Miller, J.2Group Art Unit: 3694receiving a signature submitted by said user, said signature being an agreement of said terms and conditions information;
[O] generating a new credit account for said user, said new credit account comprising a digital credit account identifier;
[P] transmitting said digital credit account identifier to said user's mobile device, wherein once received at said user's mobile device said digital credit account identifier is instantly available as a form of payment.
Step 2A, Prong One: Rep. Claim 1 recites a “generating a new credit account for said user, said new credit account comprising a [ ] credit account identifier,” (Limitation O) which recites the abstract idea exception of commercial or legal interactions under organizing human activity because generating a new credit account recites “sales activities or behaviors, and business relations” between a consumer and a credit issuer. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B) (citing Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 123 USPQ2d 1100 (Fed. Cir. 2017)). Limitations B–N, P recite the required steps for “generating a new credit account,” and therefore, recite the same exception. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B).
Limitations F1–F5 (formerly Claims 32 and 33) are mental processes that are practically performed in the human mind or with pen and paper because they require mere “observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion” in the manner claimed. For example, rejecting an account from a brand with an above threshold propensity for fraud is a mental process that is practically performed in the human mind or with pen and paper because collecting and comparing known information (i.e., the threshold and the brand propensity for fraud) are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind under Classen. Similarly, “less than a week old” and “subject to an address change within the past week” are also mental processes under Classen for the same reason. Determining whether an account has “a derogatory status” requires mere observation and evaluation of a known account condition and is a step that can be practically performed by a human reviewing account records. MPEP s 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A, Prong Two: The additional elements identified in Rep. Claim 1, considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea exception into a practical application. The additional elements are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea exception. MPEP § 2106.05(f). The additional elements are limited to the computer components and indicated in bold, supra. The additional elements are: A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, instructions, computer system, user’s mobile device, performing an automated search of a company's private database; and digital and electronic characterization of a credit account identifier and application as mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or using a computer.
Regarding the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, instructions, computer system, user’s mobile device, performing an automated search of a company's private database; and digital and electronic characterization of a credit account identifier and application as mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or using a computer, Applicant’s Specification does not otherwise describe them with specificity beyond exemplary language or describes them as a general-purpose computer, as a part of a general-purpose computer, or as any known and exemplary (generic) computer component known in the prior art. The specification’s own broad, exemplary characterization confirms that these components are not described in a manner that would impose any specific technical limitation that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, Applicant takes the position that such hardware/software is so well known to those of ordinary skill in the art that no explanation is needed under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). Spec. ¶ 15 (“well known methods, procedures, components, and circuits have not been described in detail”); Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. Am. Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1463 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (citing In re Meyers, 410 F.2d 420, 424 (CCPA 1969) (“[T]he specification need not disclose what is well known in the art”). E.g., Spec., ¶ 95 (generic and exemplary “computer-readable and computer-executable instructions that reside, for example, in non-transitory computer-readable storage media of a computer system”); ¶¶ 16, 96–99 (generic and exemplary “general purpose networked computer systems”); ¶ 23 (generic and exemplary user’s mobile device); ¶ 37 (known and exemplary “Alliance Data Legacy database or the like”); ¶ 86 (“retail store 400 is any physical brick and mortar store”); ¶ 97 (“Processors 506A, 506B, and 506C may be any of various types of microprocessors”); ¶ 103 (“The computing system 500 is only one example of a suitable computing environment and is not intended to suggest any limitation as to the scope of use or functionality of the present technology. Neither should the computing environment be interpreted as having any dependency or requirement relating to any one or combination of components illustrated in the example computing system 500.”); ¶ 105 (“any two or more embodiments may be combined”). The generic processor, here, appears to perform calculations (functions) that are programmed by software. Spec. ¶ 95. This is a computer doing what it is designed to do—performing directions it is given to follow.
Limitations B–P describe the medium, instructions, and computer system performing the steps of the claimed invention, which represents the abstract idea exception itself. Performing the steps of the abstract idea exception itself simply adds a general-purpose computer after the fact to an abstract idea exception, MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2), or generically recites an effect of the judicial exception. MPEP § 2106.05(f)(3).
Regarding performing an automated search of a company's private database, Limitations D, E, F, and G perform a search of the company's private database using a device and user identifiers (database search) (Limitation D), storing particular user specific information (Limitations D, E, & F), and obtaining (comparing, matching, transmitting) user specific information, which recite steps that merely invoke a database/computer in its ordinary capacity to transmit, receive, and store data and do not impose any specific technical limitation that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“merely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information, without more (such as identifying a particular tool for presentation), is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis.”) Reciting that the search is “automated” does not change this analysis and merely claims the use of a computer to perform the search more quickly than a person could. The claim recites no search algorithm or technical mechanism and the Specification describes the search solely as a query of an “Alliance Data Legacy database or the like”. Spec. ¶ 37. Automating a manual process with generic computer functions is” apply it” with a computer. MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2) (citing Credit Acceptance)..
Therefore, the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and is not a practical application. MPEP § 2106.05(f). The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea exception into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on the abstract idea exception. Accordingly, Rep. Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Independent Claim 23 is not substantially different than Rep. Claim 1 and include all the limitations of Rep. Claim 1. Independent Claim 23 contains no additional elements not otherwise analyzed for Rep. Claim 1. Therefore, Independent Claim 23 is also directed to the same abstract idea.
The claims do not provide an inventive concept.
Step 2B: Rep. Claim 1 fails Step 2B because the claim as a whole, even when considering the additional elements individually and in combination, does not amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. MPEP § 2106.05(d). The additional elements (i.e., the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, instructions, computer system, user’s mobile device, performing an automated search of a company's private database; and digital and electronic characterization of a credit account identifier and application), are each well-understood, routine, and conventional (“WRC”) computer components and functions in the relevant field, as evidenced by Applicant’s own disclosure. Further, Applicant’s Specification discloses that these components are implemented using generic, off-the-shelf computing technology. Spec. ¶ 15 (well known methods, procedures, components, and circuits have not been described in detail); ¶¶ 16, 23, 37, 95–99, 103, 105 (describing each component using exemplary language as generic or known computing equipment and networks).
(1) A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, instructions, computer system, user’s mobile device, and digital and electronic characterization of a credit account identifier and application are WRC in the financial technology field. Spec. ¶¶ 23, 56, 83, 84, 95–99, 103.
(2) performing an automated search of a company's private database is WRC. Spec. ¶¶ 40, 68, 96.
The Specification describes receiving, storing, transmitting, and processing data are normal, well-understood operations as the ordinary operations of a generic computer. Spec. ¶¶ 16, 96–99, 104.
As additional evidence of the conventionality indicated by Applicant’s own disclosure, the limitations “performing an automated search of a company's private database ... for user specific information” and “automatically prefilling said user specific information … into said electronic application” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities as evidenced by (all cited PTO-892):
Goodman et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2005/0257134 A1), which discloses “machine learning techniques to automatically fill (autofill) one or more fields across a diverse array of web forms,” ¶ 6, by “utilize[ing] one or more databases of information about the user,” ¶ 7 and “mapping from database fields to form values.” ¶ 13. This patent publication demonstrates that searching user databases and pre-populating form fields was widely prevalent and in common use.
Ait-Mokhtar et al. (U.S. Pat, Pub. No. 2011/0271173), which discloses a “method for filling a form” by “receiving a user's personal data” from a database, ¶ 14, “automatically filling form fields,” ¶ 15, and applying “auto-filling rules” to populate forms. ¶ 16. This reference shows that automated form filling through database searches was widely prevalent and in common use.
Lymer et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2014/0258828), which discloses using a “secure personally identifiable information (PII) database” to store data for “complet[ing] a checkout procedures” at online stores and banks, ¶ 21, with “autofill database maintenance” for form completion. Abstract. This demonstrates that database-driven form pre-population for financial applications was widely prevalent and in common use.
Ramos et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 8,732,004), which discloses “data warehouses” storing “credit-related and demographic information,” “client-selected pre-screen attributes,” and “searching databases” for credit prescreening purposes. Claim 1. This shows that database searches for credit prescreening were widely prevalent and in common use in the credit industry.
Applicant’s Reply filed Aug. 11, 2026, does not dispute the content or characterization of any of these refences or evidence.
The combination is also WRC at the high level of generality recited:
A combination of individually well-understood, routine, and conventional elements does not provide an inventive concept unless the combination itself produces an unconventional result or is applied in an unconventional manner. MPEP § 2106.05(d). Here, the combination performs each step in exactly the manner described as conventional throughout Applicant’s own Specification. The recited order (identify the applicant, retrieve and screen records, prescreen credit, fill the application, obtain signature, open the account) is the ordinary sequence of any credit application.
Unlike BASCOM, where the claims recited a specific non-conventional arrangement of installing a filtering tool at a specific network location rather than on individual devices, Rep. Claim 1 does not recite how the elements are combined in a non-conventional way. The claims recite each element at a high level of generality without specifying the particular arrangement or order that constitutes the alleged improvement. At the high level of generality recited, the combination is WRC. Any BASCOM argument fails because the non-conventional arrangement described in the specification is either not recited n Rep. Claim 1 (the confidence factor threshold, Spec. ¶ 41) or where recited (the fraud business rules of Limitations F2–F5, Spec. ¶¶ 42, 43), is part of the abstract idea itself and therefore cannot supply the inventive concept. MPEP § 2106.06(I).
Because the claims here recite only generic components performing generic functions at a high level of generality, no inventive concept is present under Step 2B. MPEP § 2106.05(d). Accordingly, the additional elements of Rep. Claim 1 have been recognized, based on Applicant’s own disclosure, as WRC activity in the field. MPEP § 2106.05(d). These elements do no more than “apply” the recited abstract idea(s) using known computer and computer-related components. See also Step 2A, Prong Two, supra.
Independent Claim 23 is a method claim reciting steps that perform the same abstract processing and generic computer operations recited in Rep. Claim 1. Independent Claim 23 adds no additional elements beyond those of Rep. Claim 1 that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, Independent Claim 23 also does not recite an inventive concept under Step 2B.
Dependent Claims Not Significantly More
The dependent claims have been given the full two-part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Dependent claims are dependent on Independent Claims and include all the limitations of the Independent Claims. Therefore, all dependent claims recite the same Abstract Idea. Dependent claims do not contain additional elements that integrate the abstract idea exception into a practical application or recite an inventive concept because the additional elements: (1) are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea exception; and/or (2) further limit the abstract idea exception of the Independent Claims. The abstract idea itself cannot provide the inventive concept or practical application. MPEP §§ 2106.05(I), 2106.04(d)(III).
Dependent Claims 2, 5, 6, 24, 27, and 28 all recite “wherein” clauses or limitations that further limit the abstract idea of the Independent Claims and contains the additional elements of: one or more databases from the group consisting of: a company specific database, and a shared customer database (Claims 2 & 24); a reverse phone number look up database (Claims 5 & 27); and one or more databases from the group consisting of: a social media site, a search engine, an online public record storage, and an online private record storage (Claims 6 & 28). The characterization of the particular type of database (e.g., company specific database, shared customer database, reverse phone number look up database) merely limits the field of use or the content stored in the database and does not change how the computer system performs the search. A field-of-use limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. MPEP § 2106.05(h). A database was analyzed supra with respect to Rep. Claim 1 in Step 2A, Prong Two, and determined to be generic. Spec. ¶¶ 38–40, 44, 45 (describing the databases as existing commercial sources such as a “reverse phone look up product”). Claims 2, 5, 6, 24, 27, and 28 merely further limit the abstract idea of Independent Claims. The abstract idea itself cannot provide the inventive concept or practical application. MPEP § 2106.05(I); MPEP § 2106.04(d)(III).
Dependent Claims 7, 8, 29, and 30 all recite “receiving” particular information in a particular way (single text message) from a mobile device, which further limits the abstract idea of the Independent Claims but contain the additional elements of: said user’s mobile device. The user’s mobile device was analyzed supra with respect to Rep. Claim 1 in Step 2A, Prong Two, and determined to be generic. Receiving identifiers via a single text message merely describes the content and format of data transmission and does not impose a technical improvement on how the mobile device operates. MPEP § 2106.05(f); Spec. ¶¶ 61–65. Claims 7, 8, 29, and 30 merely further limit the abstract idea of Independent Claims. The abstract idea itself cannot provide the inventive concept or practical application. MPEP § 2106.05(I); MPEP § 2106.04(d)(III).
Dependent Claim 9 recites additional limitations that form part of the same abstract idea exception as recited in Independent Claim 1 and contains no additional elements. Performing a credit prescreen at a credit reporting agency recites a commercial interaction. Specifically, the conventional credit industry practice of submitting identifying information to a credit reporting agency to obtain a creditworthiness determination. This falls within the same abstract idea grouping of commercial or legal interactions as the Independent Claims. The limitation is results-oientated and specifies where the prescreen occurs but not how and the credit reporting agency is a generic third party data source. MPEP § 2106.o5(f)(1); Spec. ¶¶ 24, 50 (“Experian, Equifax, TransUnion, Innovis and the like.”). The abstract idea itself cannot provide the inventive concept or practical application. MPEP § 2106.05(I); MPEP § 2106.04(d)(III).
Dependent Claims 21 and 25 recite additional limitations that form part of the same abstract idea exception as recited in Independent Claims and contains no additional elements. “[U]tilizing a confidence factor threshold to validate the user specific information found during … the company’s private search,” as drafted, recites a mental process by forming a judgment as to whether the information found in the search applies to the user. Spec. ¶ 41 (confidence judges from the age and quality of records found). Thus, for the same reasoning as explained in the analysis of Dependent Claim 9, the abstract idea itself cannot provide the inventive concept or practical application. MPEP § 2106.05(I); MPEP § 2106.04(d)(III).
Dependent Claims 22 and 26 recite additional limitations that form part of the same abstract idea exception as recited in Independent Claims and contains no additional elements. The secondary source database search recites a generic computer function of querying a database, which was analyzed with respect to Rep. Claim 1 and determined to be WRC. MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2). The verification and supplementing steps of using the secondary search result to verify information that fell below the confidence factor threshold and supplementing the primary search results recite a mental process of evaluating and comparing data from multiple sources to determine which information applies to the user. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Thus, for the same reasoning as explained in the analysis of Dependent Claim 9, the abstract idea itself cannot provide the inventive concept or practical application. MPEP § 2106.05(I); MPEP § 2106.04(d)(III).
Dependent Claim 31 recites a “wherein” clause or limitation that further limits the abstract idea of the Independent Claims and contain no additional elements. The abstract idea itself cannot provide the inventive concept or practical application. MPEP § 2106.05(I); MPEP § 2106.04(d)(III).
Conclusion
Claims 1, 2, 5–9, and 21–31 are therefore drawn to ineligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention. As such, the presentment of Rep. Claim 1 otherwise styled as another statutory category is subject to the same analysis.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES H MILLER whose telephone number is (469)295-9082. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10- 4 PM (EST).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bennett M Sigmond can be reached at (303) 297-4411. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAMES H MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694
