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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on September 30, 2025, has been entered.
Status of Claims
Applicant filed an amendment on September 30, 2025. Claims 1-20 were pending in the Application. Claims 1 and 8 are amended. No new claims have been added. Claims 4 and 9 have been canceled, with claims 15-20 remaining canceled. Claims 1 and 8 are the independent claims, the remaining claims depend on claims 1 and 8. Thus claims 1-3, 5-8, and 10-14 are currently pending. After careful and full consideration of Applicant arguments and amendments, the Examiner finds them to be moot and/or not persuasive.
Response to Arguments
In the context of Claim Interpretation, Intended Use, paragraphs 14-16 of the Final Rejection Office Action dated August 12, 2025, Applicant has not adequately amended and/or arguments are not persuasive to render the Claim Interpretation, Intended Use, moot. Claim 1 limitations “utilizing, …, the device ID to perform a search for a user specific information …” and “utilizing a confidence factor threshold to validate …, such that only user specific information …”; and the claim 11 limitation “utilizing a confidence factor threshold to validate …, such that only user specific information …” merely represent the intended uses of the brand’s computing device and the one or more processors, respectively, and therefore, carries limited patentable weight (MPEP § 2103 I C). Examiner hereby maintains the Claim Interpretation, Intended Use, paragraphs 14-16 of the Final Rejection Office Action dated August 12, 2025.
In the context of Claim Interpretation, Optional Language, paragraph 17 of the Final Rejection Office Action dated August 12, 2025, Applicant has not adequately amended and/or arguments are not persuasive to render the Claim Interpretation, Optional Language, moot. Claim 1 recites “utilizing … to perform a search …”, and as a search is never done, the subsequent language “obtaining … a result of said search …” is optional, and therefore, the limitations “utilizing …”, “determining …”, “providing …”, “performing …”, “determining …”, “generating …”, and “providing …” do not occur (MPEP § 2103 I C and MPEP § 2111.04 II). Examiner hereby maintains the Claim Interpretation, Optional Language, paragraph 17 of the Final Rejection Office Action dated August 12, 2025.
In the context of 35 U.S.C. §101, Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection. Applicant is of the opinion that the claims are statutory, and has only recited the Response to Arguments of the 101 rejection from the Final Rejection Office Action dated August 12, 2025. Applicant has respectfully asserted from the Final Rejection Office Action dated August 12, 2025 that “even, assuming arguendo, the Claim does recite the judicially recognized exception “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity – commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)”, the Claim amounts to significantly more; similar to DDR Holdings, the Claim includes the additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, because they modify conventional processes and computer system requirements; the additional elements (which are not part of the abstract idea of commercial interactions) provide an improved “hybrid” that keeps the initial customer identifying and screening process at brand’s computing system and then offloads the credit screening and credit path offers to another computing system, i.e., the credit path engine; the “inventive concept” is furnished by the additional elements recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is therefore sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself; the Step 2B analysis is provided herein results in the answer being Yes; the additional elements in the claim amount to significantly more than a judicial exception; and the elements of Claim 1 are sufficient to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101.”
Initially, the Examiner would like to point out that the basis of the rejection is Alice, by applying the subject matter eligibility analysis and flowchart according to MPEP § 2106, which applies a two-step framework, earlier set out in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012), "for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts." Alice, 573 U.S. at 217.
Under the two-step framework, it must first be determined if "the claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept." If the claims are determined to be directed to a patent-ineligible concept, e.g., an abstract idea, then the second step of the framework is applied to determine if "the elements of the claim ... contain an "inventive concept" sufficient to 'transform' the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application." (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 79).
With regard to step one of the Alice framework, we apply a "directed to" two-prong test: 1) evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, and 2) if the claim recites a judicial exception, evaluate whether the claim "applies, relies on, or uses the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception," i.e., whether the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.1. and II.B.2.).
The Specification, (PG Pub US 20210019742 A1, para 29), provides evidence as to what the claimed invention is directed. In this case, the specification, (‘742 A1, para 29), discloses that the invention relates to a novel approach for seamlessly applying for and obtaining a new credit account, and is grouped under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)”, in prong one of step 2A. (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.1.).
Claim 1 provides additional evidence, and recites the method limitations “receiving, …, a … identifier (ID) associated with … a user without receiving said PII for said user; utilizing, …, the … ID to perform a search for a user specific information; obtaining, …, a result of said search, said result comprising said user specific information; utilizing a confidence factor threshold to validate said user specific information, such that only user specific information above said confidence factor threshold is retained in said user specific information; determining, …, that said user meets a brand level interaction threshold, said brand level interaction threshold comprising: a pre-defined minimum number of visits to a brand; and a pre-defined minimum value of purchases at said brand, said user specific information including location information corresponding to said user, said location information selected from the group consisting of … positioning … data and data from a communication provider of said user; providing, …, the user specific information of said user that meets said brand level interaction threshold to a credit path …; performing, …, a credit screening, … utilizing said user specific information to perform said credit screening; determining, …, said user has passed said credit screening; generating, …, a prescribed credit path for said user; and providing, from the credit path … and to … the user, said prescribed credit path.” (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.1.).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.2.), the additional elements of the claim, such as “a computing device”, “global positioning system (GPS)”, “a credit path engine”, “a brand’s computing device”, and “a device identifier (ID)”, represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use or technological environment. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “creditworthiness for a new credit offering.”
With respect to the limitation “utilizing a confidence factor threshold to validate said user specific information, such that only user specific information above said confidence factor threshold is retained in said user specific information”, the claim lacks technological details regarding how “utilizing a confidence factor threshold to validate said user specific information, such that only user specific information above said confidence factor threshold is retained in said user specific information” is performed and, is therefore, no more than “apply it”. (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(1)).
Examiner notes the basis of the rejection was, and is not as any mental process covering performance in the mind, but classified as an abstract idea, “creditworthiness for a new credit offering”, grouped under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)”.
With respect to the additional elements operating in a non-conventional and non-generic way and reflecting an improvement to a particular technological environment, the cited additional elements represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use or technological environment. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “creditworthiness for a new credit offering.” The claim is not directed to improving computers or related technologies, but improving the method for “creditworthiness for a new credit offering”. For potential improvement in an abstract idea “creditworthiness for a new credit offering”, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a creditworthiness for a new credit offering concept) is not an improvement in technology. (MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1)). Therefore, claim 1 is non-statutory.
Claim 8 also recites the abstract idea of “creditworthiness for a new credit offering”, as well as the additional elements of “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”, “one or more processors”, “a computing device”, “a proprietary database”, “global positioning system (GPS)”, “a credit path engine”, “a brand’s computing system”, and “a device identifier (ID)”, which represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use or technological environment. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “creditworthiness for a new credit offering.”
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.05 I.A.), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claim merely describe the concept of “creditworthiness for a new credit offering” using computer technology (e.g., “one or more processors” and “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”). Therefore, the use of these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field. (MPEP 2106.05 I A (f) & (h)). Therefore, claim 8 is non-statutory.
Finally, Examiner notes the basis of the rejection is Alice, by applying the subject matter eligibility analysis and flowchart according to MPEP § 2106. And, based on this standard, the claims are non-statutory, and correctly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
In the context of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), New Matter, paragraph 25 of the Final Rejection Office Action dated August 12, 2025, Applicant has not adequately amended and/or arguments are not persuasive to render the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), New Matter, moot. Specification, (‘742 A1, paras 52, 71, 111, 239-240), is silent and lacks sufficient details so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function “determining, …, that said user meets a brand level interaction threshold, said brand level interaction threshold comprising: a pre-defined minimum number of visitors to a brand; a pre-defined minimum value of purchases at said brand, said user specific information including location information corresponding to said user, said location information selected from the group consisting of global positioning system (GPS) data and data from a communication provider of said user” to be performed. Therefore, this is an issue of new matter, which is matter not present on the filing date of the application in the specification, claims, or drawings that has been added after the application filing. Additionally, similar language is recited in claim 8. Dependent claims 2-3 and 5-7, which depend from claim 1; and dependent claims 10-14, which depend from claim 8, are also similarly rejected. (MPEP § 2163.06 I). Examiner hereby maintains the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), New Matter, paragraph 25 of the Final Rejection Office Action dated August 12, 2025.
In the context of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Unclear Scope, paragraph 27 of the Final Rejection Office Action dated August 12, 2025, Applicant has not adequately amended and/or arguments are not persuasive to render the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Unclear Scope, moot. Claim 1 is not clear whether the “brand’s computing device” or another component near or in the vicinity of the brand’s computing device, or some combination thereof, is performing the limitations “receiving, with a brand’s computing device, …”, “utilizing, with said brand’s computing device, …”, “obtaining, with said brand’s computing device, …”, and “determining, with said brand’s computing device, that said user meets …”; and claim 1 is not clear whether the “credit path engine” or another component near or in the vicinity of the credit path engine, or some combination thereof, is performing the limitations “performing, with the credit path engine, …”, “determining, with said credit path engine, …“, and “generating, with said credit path engine, …” Therefore, the scope of claim 1 is unclear. Examiner hereby maintains the Claim Interpretation, Intended Use, paragraph 27 of the Final Rejection Office Action dated August 12, 2025.
Claim Interpretation – Intended Use
Regarding Claim 1, Examiner notes that the following limitation: “utilizing, …, the device ID to perform a search for a user specific information” is an intended use of the “brand’s computing device”, and therefore carries limited patentable weight. (MPEP § 2103 I C).
Regarding Claim 1, Examiner notes that the following limitation: “utilizing a confidence factor threshold to validate …, such that only user specific information …” are intended uses of “brand’s computing device”, and therefore carries limited patentable weight. (MPEP § 2103 I C).
Regarding Claim 1, Examiner notes that the following limitation: “performing, …, a credit screening, said credit path engine utilizing said user specific information to perform said credit screening…” is an intended use of the “credit path engine”, and therefore carries limited patentable weight. (MPEP § 2103 I C).
Regarding Claim 11, Examiner notes that the following limitation: “utilizing a confidence factor threshold to validate …, such that only user specific information …” are intended uses of “one or more processors”, and therefore carries limited patentable weight. (MPEP § 2103 I C).
Claim Interpretation - Optional Language
Claim 1 recites the limitation: “utilizing, …, the device ID to perform a search …” As a search is never done, therefore, the subsequent language “obtaining … a result of said search …” is optional and the limitations “utilizing …”, “determining …”, “providing …”, “performing”, “determining …”, “generating …”, and “providing …”, do not occur. (MPEP § 2103 I C and MPEP § 2111.04 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 1-3, 5-8, and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In the instant case, claims 1-3 and 5-7 are directed to a “ method”; and claims 8 and 10-14 are directed to a “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium.” Therefore, these claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Claim 1 recites “creditworthiness for a new credit offering”, which is a form of commercial or legal interactions (i.e., organizing human activity)”, and therefore, an abstract idea. Specifically, the claim recites “receiving, …, a … identifier (ID) associated with … a user without receiving said PII for said user; utilizing, …, the … ID to perform a search for a user specific information; obtaining, …, a result of said search, said result comprising said user specific information; utilizing a confidence factor threshold to validate said user specific information, such that only user specific information above said confidence factor threshold is retained in said user specific information; determining, …, that said user meets a brand level interaction threshold, said brand level interaction threshold comprising: a pre-defined minimum number of visits to a brand; and a pre-defined minimum value of purchases at said brand, said user specific information including location information corresponding to said user, said location information selected from the group consisting of … positioning … data and data from a communication provider of said user; providing, …, the user specific information of said user that meets said brand level interaction threshold to a credit path …; performing, …, a credit screening, … utilizing said user specific information to perform said credit screening; determining, …, said user has passed said credit screening; generating, …, a prescribed credit path for said user; and providing, from the credit path … and to … the user, said prescribed credit path.” (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.1.).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.2.), the additional elements of the claim, such as “a computing device”, “global positioning system (GPS)”, “a credit path engine”, “a brand’s computing device”, and “a device identifier (ID)”, represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use or technological environment. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “creditworthiness for a new credit offering.”
With respect to the limitation “utilizing a confidence factor threshold to validate said user specific information, such that only user specific information above said confidence factor threshold is retained in said user specific information”, the claim lacks technological details regarding how “utilizing a confidence factor threshold to validate said user specific information, such that only user specific information above said confidence factor threshold is retained in said user specific information” is performed and, is therefore, no more than “apply it”. (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(1)).
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.05 I.A.), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself, and do no more than implement the abstract idea using a computer. Viewed as a whole, the elements recited in the claim merely describe the concept of “creditworthiness for a new credit offering” using computer technology (e.g., “a brand’s computing device” and “a computing device”). Therefore, the use of these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field. (MPEP 2106.05 I A (f) & (h)). Therefore, claim 1 is non-statutory.
Claim 8 also recites the abstract idea of “creditworthiness for a new credit offering”, as well as the additional elements of “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”, “one or more processors”, “a computing device”, “a proprietary database”, “global positioning system (GPS)”, “a credit path engine”, “a brand’s computing system”, and “a device identifier (ID)”, which represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use or technological environment. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “creditworthiness for a new credit offering.”
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.05 I.A.), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claim merely describe the concept of “creditworthiness for a new credit offering” using computer technology (e.g., “one or more processors” and “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”). Therefore, the use of these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field. (MPEP 2106.05 I A (f) & (h)). Therefore, claim 8 is non-statutory.”
Dependent claim 2 further describes the abstract idea of “creditworthiness for a new credit offering”. Specifically, it recites “… wherein said obtaining the user specific information comprises: utilizing the … ID to perform a … search for the user specific information.” The additional elements of “a device ID” and “a proprietary database” do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use or technological environment. And, as they do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve the functioning of the computer or computer technology.
Dependent claims 3 and 10 further describe the abstract idea of “creditworthiness for a new credit offering”. Specifically, it recites “… wherein said obtaining the user specific information further comprises: performing a secondary source … search for the user specific information.” The additional element of “a secondary source database” does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use or technological environment. And, as it does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, it does not improve the functioning of the computer or computer technology.
Dependent claim 11 further describes the abstract idea of “creditworthiness for a new credit offering”. Specifically, it recites “… wherein said … further perform a method comprising: utilizing a confidence factor threshold to validate said user specific information, such that only user specific information above said confidence factor threshold is retained in the user specific information.” The additional element of “one or more processors” does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use or technological environment. And, as it does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, it does not improve the functioning of the computer or computer technology.
Dependent claims 5 and 12 further describe the abstract idea of “creditworthiness for a new credit offering”. Specifically, they recite “… performing a … fraud risk assessment based on the … ID; and adding a result of the … fraud risk assessment to the user specific information.” The additional elements of “the device ID” and “a device fraud risk assessment” do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use or technological environment. And, as they do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve the functioning of the computer or computer technology.
Dependent claims 6 and 13 further describe the abstract idea of “creditworthiness for a new credit offering”. Specifically, they recite “… performing … fraud risk assessment based on an … address associated with the … ID; and adding a result of the … fraud risk assessment to the user specific information.” The additional elements of “an IP fraud risk assessment”, “an IP address”, and “a device ID” do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use or technological environment. And, as they do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve the functioning of the computer or computer technology.
Dependent claims 7 and 14 further describe the abstract idea of “creditworthiness for a new credit offering”. Specifically, they recite “… wherein prescribed credit path for the user further comprises: providing an estimated credit limit with a prequalification offer; and providing a credit limit with a preapproved offer.”
Hence, claims 1-3, 5-8, and 10-14 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
New Matter
Claim 1 recites, “determining, …, that said user meets a brand level interaction threshold, said brand level interaction threshold comprising: a pre-defined minimum number of visits to a brand; and a pre-defined minimum value of purchases at said brand, said user specific information including location information corresponding to said user, said location information selected from the group consisting of global positioning system (GPS) data and data from a communication provider of said user.” Specification, (PG Pub US 20210019742 A1, para 52), is directed to the location information evaluator using location information to determine an actual address, and the location information provided by the mobile phone being provided as coordinates data, which is not directed to user specific information including location information corresponding to said user, said location information selected from the group consisting of global positioning system (GPS) data and data from a communication provider of said user.
Specification, (‘742 A1, paras 71, 111), is directed to the user specific information being at least two of (para 71) or one or more of (para 111): a name and full or partial address, a driver’s license number, a social security, or the like, which is not directed to user specific information including location information corresponding to said user, said location information selected from the group consisting of global positioning system (GPS) data and data from a communication provider of said user.
Specification, (‘742 A1, para 239), recites “… the credit account provider could limit the user's that are provided to the service to only users having met minimum requirements, e.g., a user that has purchased at least 300 dollars' worth (or any value) of product in the past M-months, etc. Thus, every user that goes to the brand's web site or visits the brand store and uses their computing device would not be subjected to the offerings or expense in performing the credit offer opportunity …”; and specification, (‘742 A1, para 240), recites “… the hybrid solution would allow the brand to manage the user experience at a brand level. For example, the brand could limit the user's that are provided to the service to only users having met minimum requirements, e.g., a returning customer (or Xth time returning customer, a customer that has purchased at least 100 dollars' worth (or any value) of product in the past M-months, etc. Thus, every customer that goes to the brand's web site or visits the brand store and uses their computing device would not be subjected to the offerings …” However, specification, (‘742 A1, paras 52, 71, 111, 239-240), is silent and lacks sufficient details so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function “determining, …, that said user meets a brand level interaction threshold, said brand level interaction threshold comprising: a pre-defined minimum number of visits to a brand; and a pre-defined minimum value of purchases at said brand, said user specific information including location information corresponding to said user, said location information selected from the group consisting of global positioning system (GPS) data and data from a communication provider of said user” to be performed. Therefore, this is an issue of new matter, which is matter not present on the filing date of the application in the specification, claims, or drawings that has been added after the application filing. Additionally, similar language is recited in claim 8. Dependent claims 2-3 and 5-7, which depend from claim 1; and dependent claims 10-14, which depend from claim 8, are also similarly rejected. (MPEP § 2163.06 I).
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-7 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Unclear Scope
Claim 1 recites “receiving, with a brand’s computing device, …”, “utilizing, with said brand’s computing device, …”, “obtaining, with said brand’s computing device, …”, “determining, with said brand’s computing device, that said user meets …”, “performing, with the credit path engine, …”, “determining, with said credit path engine, …”, and “generating, with said credit path engine, …”.
With respect to the limitations “receiving, with a brand’s computing device, …”, “utilizing, with said brand’s computing device, …”, “obtaining, with said brand’s computing device, …”, and “determining, with said brand’s computing device, that said user meets …”, it is not clear whether the “brand’s computing device” or another component near or in the vicinity of the brand’s computing device, or some combination thereof, is performing the limitations “receiving, with a brand’s computing device, …”, “utilizing, with said brand’s computing device, …”, “obtaining, with said brand’s computing device, …”, and “determining, with said brand’s computing device, that said user meets …”
With respect to the limitations “performing, with the credit path engine, …”, “determining, with said credit path engine, …”, and “generating, with said credit path engine, …”, it is not clear whether the “credit path engine” or another component near or in the vicinity of the credit path engine, or some combination thereof, is performing the limitations “performing, with the credit path engine, …”, “determining, with said credit path engine, …“, and “generating, with said credit path engine, …”
MPEP § 2173.02 I recites “For example, if the language of a claim, given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is such that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable interpretation, then a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph is appropriate.” Therefore, the scope of claim 1 is unclear. Dependent claims 2-3 and 5-7, which depend from claim 1, are also similarly rejected. (MPEP § 2173.02 I and In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319,321 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Song et al (U. S. Patent No. 8412593 B1) – Credit Card Matching
Song recites a consumer providing authorization to a card match system to access the consumer's credit file to match the consumer to one or more credit cards. The consumer's credit score is retrieved and then compared to the acceptable credit score range for each of a plurality of credit cards. The consumer is notified of any matches. If one or more matches are found, a prescreened matching of the consumer to one or more credit cards is requested, without authorization from the consumer and without notifying the consumer that the prescreening is being performed. The consumer may then be notified of the matches found by the first comparison that are based on the credit score and of the matches found by the more detailed compari-son based on the attributes of the consumer's credit file.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN CHISM whose telephone number is (571) 272-5915. The examiner can normally be reached during 9:00 AM – 3:00 PM Monday – Thursday, 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, Calvin L. Hewitt II can be reached (571) 272-6709. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEVEN CHISM/
Examiner, Art Unit 3692
/DAVID P SHARVIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692