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 .
Status of Claims
Applicant filed an amendment on January 21, 2026. Claims 1-20 were pending in the Application. Claims 1-3, 8, and 10-11 are amended. No new claims have been added. Claims 4, 9, and 15-20 remain 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 35 U.S.C. §101, Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection. Applicant is of the opinion that the claims are statutory and respectfully asserts that “while the Office Action has arguably demonstrated the Claim includes an abstract element, e.g., "a fundamental economic practices or principles- creditworthiness for a new credit offering"; this argument is improperly expanded in an attempt to label the additional elements as part of the underlying abstract idea; Applicant has italicized the portions of the representative Claim that arguably recite the identified Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity - creditworthiness for a new credit offering: “performing, via the credit path engine, a credit screening based on said user specific information; determining, via said credit path engine, said user has passed said credit screening; generating, via said credit path engine, a prescribed credit path for said user; and providing, from the credit path engine and to the computing device of the user, said prescribed credit path”, has left the remainder, e.g., the "additional elements" in plain text; there are two additional elements provided in the representative Claim, the first is finding the user specific information, and the second is the brand level interaction threshold criteria; these two additional elements do not change the fundamental or abstract concept of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity - creditworthiness for a new credit offering; the italicized portion of the representative Claim is directed toward the creditworthiness for a new credit offering; the first additional element includes: "receiving, …, a device identifier (ID) of a computing device of a user without receiving said PII for said user; performing, …, a search for a user specific information said search utilizing said device ID; obtaining, …, a result of said search, said result comprising said user specific information; validating said user specific information, such that only user specific information above a confidence factor threshold is retained in said user specific information”; the obtaining of the user specific information that is used to determine the creditworthiness is new and improves the technology, prior to the Claimed elements, this information was provided by the credit applicant [user], and here, the Claimed additional elements provide a method for obtaining the user specific information without input from the user; the second inventive concept is the brand level interaction threshold criteria, i.e., "determining, via said brand's computing device, 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; providing, via the brand's computing device, the user specific information of said user that meets said brand level interaction threshold to a credit path engine"; the inventive concept introduces a new requirement that does not have anything to do with creditworthiness of the user but instead on brand loyalty, interaction, etc.; by providing this additional element, the system disqualifies user's that don't meet the minimum interactive requirements; this new and novel requirement reduces computer system resources, processing requirements, and credit screening costs by ensuring only user's that meet the interactive requirements are subjected to the "credit worthiness" process; the at least two inventive concepts furnished by the above identified additional elements recited in the claim are (beyond) the judicial exception and therefore sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself; the Step 2B analysis provided herein results in the answer being Yes, the additional elements in the claim amount to significantly more than a judicial exception; the elements of representative independent Claim 1 are sufficient to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101; independent Claim 8 recites features similar to (yet possibly different from) the features identified above with respect to independent Claim 1, and therefore, the elements of Claim 8 are also sufficient to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for at least the reasons given above with respect to Claim 1; and that Claims 2-3, 5-7, and 10-14 overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for at least the reasons set forth above with respect to Claims 1 and 8.”
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.).
[AltContent: ]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 limitations “receiving, at a brand's computing device, a device identifier (ID) of a computing device of a user without receiving said PII for said user; performing, via said brand's computing device, a search for a user specific information said search utilizing said device ID; obtaining, via said brand's computing device, a result of said search, said result comprising said user specific information; validating said user specific information, such that only user specific information above a confidence factor threshold is retained in said user specific information; determining, via said brand's computing device, 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; providing, via the brand's computing device, the user specific information of said user that meets said brand level interaction threshold to a credit path engine; performing, via the credit path engine, a credit screening; determining, via said credit path engine, said user has passed said credit screening; generating, via said credit path engine, a prescribed credit path for said user; and providing, from the credit path engine and to the computing device of the user, said prescribed credit path”, where the italicized claim language represents the abstract idea of “determining creditworthiness for a new credit offering”, and the additional elements are in bold. (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 brand’s computing device”, “a computing device of a user”, and “a credit path engine”, amount to merely “apply it”, as they represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. 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 “determining creditworthiness for a new credit offering.”
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, “determining 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. 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 “determining creditworthiness for a new credit offering.” The claim is not directed to improving computer functionality nor improving another technology or technical field, but improving the abstract idea “determining creditworthiness for a new credit offering”. For potential improvement in an abstract idea “determining creditworthiness for a new credit offering”, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a determining 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 “determining creditworthiness for a new credit offering”, as well as the additional elements of “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions embodied therein that, when executed by one or more, cause said one or more processors to perform a method comprising: …”, “a computing device of a user”, “a proprietary database search for said user specific information”, and “a credit path engine”, which amount to merely “apply it”, as they represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. 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 “determining 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 “determining 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 as the computer does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or technical field. 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 26 of the Non-Final Rejection Office Action dated October 21, 2025, Applicant has adequately amended to render the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), New Matter, moot. Claim 1 has been amended to recite “determining, via said brand’s computing device, 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”, which the specification, (PG Pub US 20210019742 A1, para 240) provides support by reciting “… 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”. Examiner hereby rescinds the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), New Matter, paragraph 26 of the Non-Final Rejection Office Action dated October 21, 2025.
In the context of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Unclear Scope, paragraph 28 of the Non-Final Rejection Office Action dated October 21, 2025, Applicant has adequately amended to render the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Unclear Scope, moot. As now amended, claim 1 is clear that the “brand’s computing device” is performing the limitations “receiving, at a brand’s computing device, …; performing, via said brand’s computing device, …; obtaining, via said brand’s computing device, …; …; … determining, via said brand’s computing device, that said user meets …”; and claim 1 is clear that the “credit path engine” is performing the limitations “performing, via the credit path engine, …; determining, via said credit path engine, …; generating, via said credit path engine, …; …” Therefore, the scope of claim 1 is clear. Examiner hereby rescinds the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Unclear Scope, paragraph 28 of the Non-Final Rejection Office Action dated October 21, 2025.
In the context of 35 U.S.C. § 103, in the Final Rejection Office Action dated August 12, 2025, Examiner failed to provide rationale for rescinding the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection in the Non-Final Rejection Office Action dated February 14, 2025. Examiner submits that Applicant has adequately amended to overcome the current record of art in the Non-Final Rejection Office Action, dated February 14, 2025, of Skordas, US 20190164163 A1, Chaouki, US 20150262248 A1, Mallalieu, US 8402040 B2, Winstrom, US 10599873 B2, and Kapis, US 8556165 B2, and render the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 moot. The cited references of record individually, and in combination, fail to teach, disclose, or render obvious at least “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, with said brand’s computing device, 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;”, “providing, via the brand's computing device, the user specific information of said user that meets said brand level interaction threshold to a credit path engine”, and “performing, with the credit path engine, a credit screening, said credit path engine utilizing said user specific information to perform credit screening”. After further consideration and search, no prior art was found to render at least these limitations obvious. Examiner hereby rescinds the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in the Non-Final Rejection Office Action, dated February 14, 2025.
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 “determining 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, at a brand's computing device, a device identifier (ID) of a computing device of a user without receiving said PII for said user; performing, via said brand's computing device, a search for a user specific information said search utilizing said device ID; obtaining, via said brand's computing device, a result of said search, said result comprising said user specific information; validating said user specific information, such that only user specific information above a confidence factor threshold is retained in said user specific information; determining, via said brand's computing device, 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; providing, via the brand's computing device, the user specific information of said user that meets said brand level interaction threshold to a credit path engine; performing, via the credit path engine, a credit screening; determining, via said credit path engine, said user has passed said credit screening; generating, via said credit path engine, a prescribed credit path for said user; and providing, from the credit path engine and to the computing device of the user, said prescribed credit path”, where the italicized claim language represents the abstract idea of “determining creditworthiness for a new credit offering”, and the additional elements are in bold. (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 brand’s computing device”, “a computing device of a user”, and “a credit path engine”, amount to merely “apply it”, as they represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. 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 “determining 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 “determining creditworthiness for a new credit offering” using computer technology (e.g., “a brand’s computing device” and “a computing device”). Therefore, these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And as the computer does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or technical field. Therefore, claim 1 is non-statutory.
Claim 8 also recites the abstract idea of “determining creditworthiness for a new credit offering”, as well as the additional elements of “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions embodied therein that, when executed by one or more, cause said one or more processors to perform a method comprising: …”, “a computing device of a user”, “a proprietary database search for said user specific information”, and “a credit path engine”, which amount to merely “apply it”, as they represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. 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 “determining 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 “determining 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 as the computer does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or technical field. Therefore, claim 8 is non-statutory.
Dependent claims 2-3, 5-7, and 10-14 further describe the abstract idea of “determining creditworthiness for a new credit offering”, which is insufficient to overcome the rejections of claims 1 and 8.
Dependent claims 5, 7, 11-12, and 14 do not recite any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and that do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “determining creditworthiness for a new credit offering”, when analyzed under Step 2A, Prong Two. And, as they do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or a technical field, when analyzed under Step 2B.
Dependent claim 2 recites a new additional element of “a proprietary database”, which does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And, as it does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, it does not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or a technical field.
Dependent claims 3 and 10 recites a new additional element of “a secondary source database”, which does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And, as it does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, it does not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or a technical field.
Dependent claims 6 and 13 recites a new additional element of “an IP address associated with the device ID”, which does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And, as it does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, it does not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or a technical field.
Hence, claims 1-3, 5-8, and 10-14 are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Monaco et al (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 20190147708 A1) – Point-Of-Sale (“POS”) System Integrating Merchant-Based Rewards
Monaco recites a merchant point-of-sale ("POS") system architecture. Systems and methods are provided for enabling merchant funded rewards at a POS terminal. Systems and methods are provided for tracking customer activity and determining an appropriate merchant funded reward. The POS terminal may determine an appropriate merchant, funded reward based on location and historical customer transaction data. The merchant may offer a custom reward that promotes customer behaviors that are advantageous to the merchant and other transaction participants. A merchant funded rewards program may be configured to drive incremental sales to merchants that participate in the program
Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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, Ryan D. Donlon can be reached (570) 272-3602. 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 R CHISM/Examiner, Art Unit 3692
/RYAN D DONLON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3692 April 10, 2026
Prosecution Insights