DETAILED ACTION
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 .
The following is a Non-Final Office Action in response to communications received May 19, 2026. Claim 5 has been canceled. Claims 1-4 and 6-20 have been amended. No new claims have been added. Therefore, claims 1-4 and 6-20 are pending and addressed below.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 has been entered.
Priority
Application 16745122 filed 01/16/2020 and having 4 RCE-type filing therein Claims Priority from Provisional Application 62814751 , filed 03/06/2019.
Applicant Name/Assignee: Comenity LLC
Inventor(s): Anderson, Chris; Lawrence, Jess; Tammina, Manoj
Response to Amendment/Arguments
Claim Interpretation
In the remarks applicant argues the amended limitations “stopping any further progress within said web-based credit application process until said secure verification code is received in a verification field of another web-page of said web- based credit application process” makes moot the claim interpretation “the examiner is interpreting the language- “stopping any further actions at said web-based application system until said secure verification code provided" to be preventing the access to the application until the code is entered”. The examiner finds the amended limitations to be analogous to the claim interpretation of the Office Action dated 02/19/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant's arguments filed 05/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks applicant list the claim limitations arguing that the limitations cannot reasonably be performed using mental concepts. This is because a plurality of the recited steps cannot be performed by the human mind even with pen and paper in limitations claims 1-4 and 6-7, claims 8-14 and 15-20. The examiner respectfully disagrees with the premise of applicant’s argument. The 101 rejection of the previous Office Action was not rejected for abstract concept of mental processes.
In the remarks applicant argues that the under step 2A prong 2, the claimed subject matter integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application pointing to the MPEP 2106.04(d), MPEP 2106 subsection III, the Alice decision, Genetic Techs Ltd v Merial LLC, RecogniCorp LLC v Nintendo Co., Diamond v Diehr and DDR Holdings for guidance. Applicant argues reciting the limitations, the additional elements recited in the claim using a combination of different technological environments, features, capabilities and the like to determine users’ home address integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application. Applicant argues the utilization of a number of different technological environments in combination with different specific steps, web page layout fillable inputs, data transmission between different technologies, location data interpretation and the like integrate the alleged abstract idea. Applicant recites the limitations “accessing, via a …computing system, a web-based credit application hosted by a …computer system”, “inputting, via a …a user’s computing system, a user ID….”, “obtaining, at said …provider’s computer, a computer system identifier…”, “stopping any further progress within said web-based credit application process until …verification code is received in…field of another web-page of said …credit application process”, recite a plurality of additional different systems which recite specific integrated and practical application of the exception. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Transmitting data between devices has been determined by the courts as insignificant extra solution activity (see Bilski). Accordingly, the “inputting” and “obtaining” steps using technology “via user’s computing device” and “provider’s computer” does not integrate the alleged abstract idea, but instead performs insignificant extra solution activity. The limitation “accessing, via a …computing system, a web-based credit application hosted by a …computer system” are not directed toward the computing system itself, instead merely applying technology to access data. The “accessing” limitations do not improve technology or provide a solution to a problem rooted in technology. Accordingly, the limitation does not integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application.
The limitation “stopping any further progress within said web-based credit application process until …verification code is received in…field of another web-page of said …credit application process” is not tied to any technology.
When considered as a combination the limitations are not directed toward improving technology or its capability or solving a problem rooted in technology or a process where the judicial exception imposes meaningful limits on the technology or the technology imposes meaningful limits in the judicial exception, rather the combination merely applies technology to fill in a credit application. The rejection is maintained.
In the remarks applicant argues that the claimed limitations recite additional messaged, communications and links between systems and environments in a specific integrated and practical application. The applicant recites the limitations addresses a number of specific components performing different parts of the solution, the technical details of the message presented on web pages that include user information requests, fillable boxes and selectable options as well as interaction between different components. The elements provide meaningful limitations restrict the identified concepts to a particular useful application with a particular way to achieve the desired outcome as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution/outcome. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. The examiner notes that applicant does not identify what in the underlying technology is improved upon or how the recited limitations are directed toward solving a problem rooted in technology or go beyond merely applying technology to perform the identified abstract idea. The rejection is maintained.
Applicant states without analysis of the limitations that the claim imposes meaningful limits on the judicial exception when the limitations are considered as a whole. Applicant does not identify the meaningful limits that are imposed on the judicial exception. The rejection is maintained.
In the remarks applicant argues that based on arguments above, claims 1-4 and 6-20 are patent eligible under 101. The examiner respectfully disagrees. See response above, the rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant's arguments are moot in light of the new ground of rejection that was necessitated by Applicant's amendments. Based on an updated search of the art, a new reference was used in the rejection below
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 1-4 and 6-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the instant application is directed to non-patentable subject matter. Specifically, the claims are directed toward at least one judicial exception without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The rationale for this determination is in accordance with the guidelines of USPTO, applies to all statutory categories, and is explained in detail below.
In reference to Claims 1-4 and 6-7:
STEP 1. Per Step 1 of the two-step analysis, the claims are determined to include a method, as in independent Claim 1 and the dependent claims. Such methods fall under the statutory category of "process." Therefore, the claims are directed to a statutory eligibility category.
STEP 2A Prong 1. The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Method claim 1 recites a method to 1) access an application, 2) inputting ID’s 3) obtaining system identifier 4) transmitting verification code 5) receiving verification code and command for time range of historical location information 6) transmitting location information 7) receiving location information 8) determining home address comprising sorting location into time periods and identifying most often occurring location 9) stopping application process until code provided 10) inputting verification code 11) confirming a match between verification code and code transmitted 12) utilizing identifier 13) presenting search result 14) accessing user information of credit application 15) pre-populating an e-commerce application with user data.
The claimed limitations which under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of transaction/commercial activity of a process to fill out a credit application and authenticate/verify user data applied for use in the credit application.
Accordingly the claimed limitations as a whole is directed toward legal and commercial interactions. . These concepts are enumerated in Section I of the 2019 revised patent subject matter eligibility guidance published in the federal register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019) is directed toward abstract category of organizing human activity.
STEP 2A Prong 2: The identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims fail to provide indications of patent eligible subject matter that integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea include a user’s mobile device, a credit providers computer, a user’s computing system, web-based credit application system.
The additional element “user’s computing system” applied to perform the step “inputting” ID’s, “inputting” verification code, “receiving…a verification”; the additional element “credit provider’s computer” to perform the steps “obtaining” computer system identifier, “transmitting…message…comprising …verification code”, “receiving …historical information”, “presenting …a result of …search”; the additional element “mobile device” to perform the step “receiving …message comprising…verification code and a command for …range of historical location information stored on…mobile device”, transmitting …historical location information…”
“providing…secure verification code”; the user’s mobile device applied to perform the operation “receiving …secure verification code”; the web-based credit application system applied to perform the operation “receiving…system identifier”, “receiving …mobile phone ID”, “receiving…user’s ID” and “receiving …a verification…”.
According to to MPEP 2106.05(d) II (see also MPEP 2106.05(g)) the courts have recognized the following computer functions are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) where technology is merely applied to perform the abstract idea or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
The claim operations (providing, receiving) of the additional elements (a user’s mobile device, a user’s computing system, credit provider’s system and web-based credit application system) are recited at a high level of generality without details of technical implementation and thus are insignificant extra solution activity.
The claimed additional element “user’s computing system” is applied to recite the method steps “accessing …web-based credit application …” and “accessing …web-page of …credit application” which is merely applying technology to examine a credit application.
The claimed additional element “credit provider’s computer system” to perform the step “determining …user’s home address from historical location information comprising …sorting …historical location information into plurality of time periods…” and “identifying a most often occurring location …”- applying technology to analyze user historical location information for use in credit application.
The claimed additional element “credit provider’s computer system” to perform the step “confirming …a match between …verification code input and verification code transmitted…” -applying technology to analyze data to mitigate risk.
The claimed additional element “credit provider’s computer system” to perform the step “utilizing” to perform a search for user information – applying technology to search data for a business process for an application.
With respect to the limitations “stopping any further progress within said web-based credit application process until said secure verification code is received in a verification field of another web-page of said web- based credit application process” and “prepopulating, within a credit application web-page of said web-based credit application process, a plurality of information fields of a credit application with said user specific information and said home address”, the limitations is not tied to any particular technology to perform the operation and focuses on risk mitigation in populating a credit application (business/legal practice)
Taking the claim elements separately, the operation performed at the computing system at each step of the process is purely in terms of results desired and devoid of implementation of details. Technology is not integral to the process as the claimed subject matter is so high level that a human could be performing the determining steps. Furthermore, the claimed steps do not provide an operation that could be considered as sufficient to provide a technological implementation or application of/or improvement to this concept (i.e. integrated into a practical application).
When considered as an ordered combination Limitations applying the user’s computing system to perform the steps 1 – 2 and applying additional element “credit provider’s computer” to perform the obtaining step 3 are directed toward accessing a credit application and inputting ID data into the application and obtaining ID of limitations 1-2 applying technology to perform a credit application process. The combination of limitations performed by the additional element credit provider’s computer system to perform the steps 4 transmitting verification code and limitations 5-7 applied by a mobile device is directed toward the steps receiving message (verification code and pre-defined time range of historical information) and performed by the credit provider’s computer system step 7 transmitting historical information stored in mobile device and receiving historical information at credit provider’s computer system – which is merely applying technology by receiving and transmitting verification code and historical location information for risk mitigation and verification. The combination of limitations 8-11 is directed toward applying credit provider’s computer system to perform the step “determining location information by sorting location into plurality time period, identifying most often occurring location for time period” using credit provider’s computer system, “stopping further progress of credit application until verification code received” of limitations 1-7, “inputting …verification code…” using user’s computing system and “confirming match between inputted verification code and verification code transmitted to mobile device” using credit provider’s computer system performing the risk mitigation process. The combination of limitations 12-16 is directed toward utilizing credit provider’s computer system to perform a user specific information search and presenting the search results and then accessing the user specific information web-page of credit application and receiving user information searched of limitations 12-13 and verification of user information that is used to prepopulate credit application using user’s computing device – which is merely applying technology to search, receive user specific information used to prepopulate credit applications- a business practice. Accordingly the combination of parts is directed toward the business practice of accessing a credit application, gathering data, risk mitigation using verification codes and pre-populating credit application with user data searched, inputted and received.
The claim limitations do not provide a significant improvement over manual application processes and authenticating users in order to allow a user to fill out an application. The specification discloses approaching for obtaining a credit account after finding out information pre-populating forms to a user on a mobile device in order to reduce the amount of work a user has to do when inputting application information (spec ¶ 0002, (spec ¶ 0028). The specification makes clear that the focus of the invention is to applying and obtain a credit account where the amount of data the user needs to enter is reduced solving a problem rooted in the realm of customer key fatigue (human behavior). Therefore, in light of the specification, when considered as a whole, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of applying and completing an application for credit account, validating the credit account and authorizing a transaction based on validation.
The claims when taken as a whole, as an ordered combination, the combination of steps does not add “significantly more” by virtue of considering the steps as a whole, as an ordered combination. This is because the claimed subject matter is directed toward collecting data and using technology to autofill, complete and submit a credit application and validating the populated credit application data - credit application business practice. The limitations recited fail to provide additional elements or combination or elements to apply or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The additional element “via a user’s computing system”, “mobile device”, credit provider’s computer system” and “at the web-based credit application” is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the credit application process for populating data, therefore, acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea. The computing system is claimed generically and is operating in its ordinary capacity and does not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes meaningful limits upon the judicial exception. The additional limitations is no more than instructions to obtain transaction verifying information. The method claims simply recite the concept of collecting data to utilize for populating a credit application where the populated data is then validated. The integration of elements do not improve upon technology or improve upon computer functionality or capability in how computers or mobile devices carry out one of their basic functions. The integration of elements do not provide a process that allows computers to perform functions that previously could not be performed. The integration of elements do not provide a process which applies a relationship to apply a new way of using an application. The instant application, therefore, still appears only to implement the abstract idea to the particular technological environments apply what generic computer functionality in the related arts. The steps are still a combination made to collect data, populate and complete an application for a new credit account, provide and validate the new credit account and authorize a transaction using the validated new credit account. The additional steps only add to those abstract ideas using generic functions, and the claims do not show improved ways of, for example, particular technical process for performing the abstract idea that could then be pointed to as being “significantly more” than the abstract ideas themselves. Moreover, Examiner was not able to identify any specific process, which, when considered in the ordered combination with the other steps, could have transformed the nature of the abstract idea previously identified. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
STEP 2B; The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to concepts of the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea include “via a user’s computing system”, “mobile device”, “credit provider’s computer system” and “at the web-based credit application” are generic with general purpose computer environment and functions. As discussed above with respect to step 2A prong 2, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using computer elements. Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the computer at each step of the process is purely conventional. Functions as recited “accessing”, “stopping”, “providing”, “receiving”, “utilizing”, “prepopulating”, “validating”, “obtaining” ----are some of the most basic functions of a computer.
All of these computer functions are generic, routine, conventional computer activities that are performed only for their conventional uses. See Elec. Power Grp. v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Also see In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011) Absent a possible narrower construction of the terms “accessing”, “receiving”, “providing”, “stopping”, “utilizing”, and “prepopulating” ... are functions can be achieved by any general purpose computer without special programming"). None of these activities are used in some unconventional manner nor do any produce some unexpected result. In short, each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. As to the data operated upon, "even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is 'limited to particular content' or a particular 'source,' that limitation does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract." SAP America, Inc. v. Invest Pic LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of Applicant’s claimed functions add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. The sequence of data reception-analysis modification-transmission is equally generic and conventional. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (sequence of receiving, selecting, offering for exchange, display, allowing access, and receiving payment recited as an abstraction), Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of data retrieval, analysis, modification, generation, display, and transmission), Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of processing, routing, controlling, and monitoring). The ordering of the steps is therefore ordinary and conventional. The analysis conclude that the claims do not provide an inventive concept because the additional elements recited in the claims do not provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
According to 2106.05 well-understood and routine processes to perform the abstract idea is not sufficient to transform the claim into patent eligibility.
The specification discloses:
[0034] In contrast, a non-phone computing device refers to any computing device such as a
laptop, desktop, notebook, or the like that does not have ingrained telephony capability via the
mobile carrier. Thus, a computing device that utilizes only the Internet, Wi-Fi, or the like to
make phone calls would be an example of a non-phone computing device.
[00224] Referring still to Figure 8, various other components are depicted for system 800.
Specifically, when present, an operating system 1022, applications 1024, modules 1026, and data
1028 are shown as typically residing in one or some combination of computer usable volatile
memory 1008, e.g. random access memory (RAM), and data storage unit 1102. However, it is
appreciated that in some embodiments, operating system 1022 may be stored in other locations
such as on a network or on a flash drive; and that further, operating system 1022 may be
accessed from a remote location via, for example, a coupling to the internet. In one embodiment, the present technology, for example, is stored as an application 1024 or module 1026 in memory locations within RAM I 008 and memory areas within data storage unit 1102. The present
technology may be applied to one or more elements of described computer system 800.
[00225] System 800 also includes one or more signal generating and receiving device(s) 1030
coupled with bus I 004 for enabling system 800 to interface with other electronic devices and
computer systems. Signal generating and receiving device(s) 1030 of the present embodiment
may include wired serial adaptors, modems, and network adaptors, wireless modems, and
wireless network adaptors, and other such communication technology. The signal generating
and receiving device(s) 1030 may work in conjunction with one or more communication
interface(s) 1032 for coupling information to and/or from system 800. Communication interface
1032 may include a serial port, parallel port, Universal Serial Bus (USB), Ethernet port,
Bluetooth, thunderbolt, near field communications port, WiFi, Cellular modem, or other
input/output interface. Communication interface 1032 may physically, electrically, optically, or
wirelessly (e.g., via radio frequency) couple computer system 800 with another device, such as a
mobile telephone, radio, or computer system.
[00226] The computing system 800 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 800.
The claim limitations do not provide a significant improvement over manual application processes and authenticating users in order to allow a user to fill out an application. The specification discloses approaching for obtaining a credit account after finding out information pre-populating forms to a user on a mobile device in order to reduce the amount of work a user has to do when inputting application information (spec ¶ 0002, (spec ¶ 0028). The specification makes clear that the focus of the invention is to applying and obtain a credit account where the amount of data the user needs to enter is reduced solving a problem rooted in the realm of customer key fatigue (human behavior). Therefore, in light of the specification, when considered as a whole, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of applying and completing an application for credit account, validating the credit account and authorizing a transaction based on validation.
With respect to requiring security codes to access information/web sites/services/application, such requirements are well known.
As evidence the examiner provides:
[0099] Figure 4A is a screen capture 400 of a web-based credit application as viewed on a user's
computing device shown in accordance with an embodiment. Figure 4B is a screen capture 410
of a verification text to a user's mobile phone shown in accordance with an embodiment. Figure
4C is a screen capture 420 of a web-based credit application requesting the verification code as
viewed on a user's computing device shown in accordance with an embodiment. Figure 4D is a
screen capture 430 of a web-based credit application requesting the verification of found user
information as viewed on a user's computing device shown in accordance with an embodiment.
Figure 4E is a screen capture 440 of a web-based credit application providing the terms and conditions 445 as viewed on a user's computing device shown in accordance with an
embodiment. Figure 4F is a screen capture 450 of a new credit account as viewed on a user's
computing device shown in accordance with an embodiment. Figure 4G is a screen capture 460
of a confirmation that the new credit account information has been sent to the user's mobile
phone as viewed on a user's computing device shown in accordance with an embodiment.
Figure 4H is a screen capture 470 of a text including instructions on putting the new account into
the user's mobile wallet as seen on a user's mobile phone shown in accordance with an
embodiment. Figure 41 is a screen capture 480 of a web-based credit application, with fewer
customer input fields that the web-based credit application as shown in Figure 4A, depicted on
the display of the user's computing device and shown in accordance with an embodiment.
[00118] In one embodiment as shown in Figure 4C, the web-based credit application requests the
verification code response 421 and once it is entered, in one embodiment, the user will click on
the next 422.
PNG
media_image1.png
356
555
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
309
514
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
553
825
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The limitations for receiving and providing the verification code as disclosed in the specification fails to provide an unconventional technical process.
CA 3048577 A1 by Subramanian et al- “utilizing an acquisition system 310, a customer may, via an acquisition application on a customer device, simultaneously apply for a loan to purchase an item… Authentication data may be generated in response to receive data, such as data input on a user device and transmitted to authentication processor 124. The authentication data may be generated based on a phone number, account number, personal code (e.g., PIN and/or password), birthdate, and/or other user-input data. By way of example, authentication processor 124 may receive the user-input data and generate an authentication code, such as a security token, a code generated by using a hash function, and the like. … For example, if a user is requesting authentication from a user device to receive access to an online registry and the authentication module 132 determines that an authentication code should be transmitted to the user device based on data stored in data storage 126 (or from a third party), ….[0072] Authentication data may be generated to be included with a notification, such as an SMS message, an MMS message, an e-mail, a push notification, a voicemail message, and the like. … where authentication
data is transmitted in a push notification, the push notification may include a link to open a website, a mobile application, an authentication request notification, and/or an SMS message to input the authentication code and/or response. … an SMS message, MMS
message, e-mail, and the like may include a link to direct a customer to input the
authentication data and/or authentication response for access to the online registry.” (para 0071-0072); US Pub No. 2018/0005239 A1 by Schlesinger et al- para 0058-0062- wherein the prior art teaches the generation of a unique identifier code by validation app at device, the code can be displayed /scanned by service device or the service device can receive the code from the user at service provider website. (see FIG. 3, FIG. 5C); US Pub No. 2015/0206145 A1 by Tobinai -para 0064-0065 wherein the prior art teaches email contains one-time password for user to obtain card number and information and the applicant accesses specified webpage through user terminal and enters one-time password transmitting the password and the system performs the authentication…when password correct…the notification unit transmits card number and other information”
…US Pub No. 2019/0132131 A1 by Clements-“Background” [0002]… For such communications, networked systems and associated information handling systems generally require some form of authentication or validation. Typically, before a user is allowed access to a secure website, network, or online service, the user generally will have to provide an authentication code, or other validation information, such as a user name, password, an authentication certificate, and/or other security information.”; US Pub No. 2018/0063204 A1 by Gruber et al- [0048]… More specifically, typically, when a request to join a telecommunication session is received, a requester is required to enter an authentication code to gain access to the telecommunication session”; US Pub No. 2017/0177985 A1 by Hayashi- “Background” [0004]… However, the conventional multifunction peripheral only displays a list of those print data that is stored in association with the inputted authentication code from among all print data that the user had transmitted from the personal computer. In other words, the user cannot view all print data that the user had transmitted.”’ US Patent No. 9,109,379 B1 by Ranchod “background” - These protocols are typically well-known in the area of banking whereupon in order to access the account record, the person requesting access is required to have access to at least two, separate communications channels with identifying information requesting access being entered using one of the communications channels and a separate, authorisation code is generated and sent to the requestor via an independent communications channel (and typically to an independent device) with access being granted only if the generated authorization code is then entered with the normal identifying information.”; US Pub No. 2014/0344904 A1 by Venkataramani et al- “Background”- “For example, some authentication mechanisms use an authentication token which can provide an value which a user must provide in addition to a username and password to access an application or service (or to authorize a requested transaction). Typically however, users have to manually enter a security code presented on a device each time a user accesses the application or service. ….”; US Pub No. 2003/0140121 A1 by Adams – para 0038 “Further, in accordance with another embodiment of the present invention, call authentication (for example, using an access code) is provided by means of a web-provided authentication code in accordance with any one of a number of methods that are well known to those of ordinary skill in the art. Then, in accordance with this embodiment of the present invention, the user authenticates who he/she is by means of the access code given to him/her by, for example, using a web browser. The access code can be generated by either the audio server, control server or web-server add-in components, the choice of which is installation dependent.”
US Patent No. 10,091,349 B1 Rao et al wherein the prior art discloses analytics on retrieved records based on identifiers; US Pub No. 2018/0053252 A1 Koltnow et al – wherein the prior art discloses receiving user specific information, device identifier usable to populate an application form for credit via the mobile device;
See also US Pub No. 2015/0358478 A1 by Arazi et al (see para 0009, para 0049); WO 2013086390 A2 by Ohlhausen (para 0005-0006, para 0022); US Pub No. 2016/0012465 A1 by Sharp (see para 0026, para 0039, para 0081); US Pub No. 2013/0218752 A1 by Pawlusiak et al (see para 0002, para 0015, para 0022, para 0050, para 0065, para 0073); CA 3012794 A1 by Billman et al discloses “merely recite the performance of some business practice known from the pre-location information 103 to pre-populate and verify information on a credit application 193 is 120 is prefilled into the application 193. By populating application 193 prior to the applicant, the abandonment rate will be improved as the application 193 application 193 can be simplified”; WO 2016076901 A1 by Kay et al- Auto-population of data fields in an electronic document is known in the art. An example of a system that incorporates auto-population of documents is disclosed in US Patent Application Publication No. US 2014/0249991 A1; US Pub No. 20140279383 A1 by Morgan et al- para 0026 “The applicant populates one or more forms with personal identifying information and financial information. Such population may be done manually, semi-automatically, or automatically. Semi-automatic or automatic population may be undertaken using pre-stored information or automatic completion ("auto-complete") tools known to those of skill in the art.” The claimed limitations do not provide the needed significantly more under step 2B.
The instant application, therefore, still appears to only implement the abstract ideas to the particular technological environments using what is generic components and functions in the related arts. The claim is not patent eligible.
The remaining dependent claims—which impose additional limitations—also fail to claim patent-eligible subject matter because the limitations cannot be considered statutory. In reference to claims 2-4 and 6-7 these dependent claim have also been reviewed with the same analysis as independent claim 1. Claim 2 is directed toward performing search for user information- applying technology to search information for credit application. Claim 3 is directed toward searching a database - applying technology to search information for credit application. Claim 4 is directed toward utilizing factors such as user specific information to populate the credit application- a business practice. Claim 6 is directed toward obtaining authorization, receiving data and verifying information is directed toward a business practice. Claim 7 is directed toward preforming risk analysis which is a fundamental economic transaction.
The dependent claim(s) have been examined individually and in combination with the preceding claims, however they do not cure the deficiencies of claim 1. Where all claims are directed to the same abstract idea, “addressing each claim of the asserted patents [is] unnecessary.” Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat 7 Ass ’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014). If applicant believes the dependent claims 2-4 and 6-7 are directed towards patent eligible subject matter, they are invited to point out the specific limitations in the claim that are directed towards patent eligible subject matter.
In reference to Claims 8-14:
STEP 1. Per Step 1 of the two-step analysis, the claims are determined to include a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, as in independent Claim 8 and the dependent claims. Such mediums fall under the statutory category of "manufacture." Therefore, the claims are directed to a statutory eligibility category.
STEP 2A Prong 1. non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim 8 corresponds to method claim 1. Therefore, claim 8 has been analyzed and rejected as being directed toward an abstract idea of the categories of concepts directed toward mental processes and market activity previously discussed with respect to claim 1.
STEP 2A Prong 2: Non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim 8 corresponds to method claim 1. Therefore, claim 8 has been analyzed and rejected as failing to provide limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application, as previously discussed with respect to claim 1.
STEP 2B; The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to concepts of the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea include “one or more computing system”, “credit provider’s computer” and “web-based credit application“ are generic with general purpose computer environment and functions. Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the computer at each step of the process is purely conventional.
Functions as recited “accessing”, “stopping” “providing”, “receiving”, “utilizing”, “prepopulating”, “completing”, “submitting”, “validating”, “obtaining” and “authorizing”-----are some of the most basic functions of a computer.
All of these computer functions are generic, routine, conventional computer activities that are performed only for their conventional uses. See Elec. Power Grp. v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Also see In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("Absent a possible narrower construction of the terms “generating”, “transmitting”, “intercepting”, identifying”, “determining”, “replacing” and “routing' ... are functions can be achieved by any general purpose computer without special programming"). None of these activities are used in some unconventional manner nor do any produce some unexpected result. In short, each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. As to the data operated upon, "even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is 'limited to particular content' or a particular 'source,' that limitation does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract." SAP America, Inc. v. Invest Pic LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of Applicant’s claimed functions add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. The sequence of data reception-analysis modification-transmission is equally generic and conventional. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (sequence of receiving, selecting, offering for exchange, display, allowing access, and receiving payment recited as an abstraction), Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of data retrieval, analysis, modification, generation, display, and transmission), Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of processing, routing, controlling, and monitoring). The ordering of the steps is therefore ordinary and conventional. The analysis conclude that the claims do not provide an inventive concept because the additional elements recited in the claims do not provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
According to 2106.05 well-understood and routine processes to perform the abstract idea is not sufficient to transform the claim into patent eligibility.
[0034] In contrast, a non-phone computing device refers to any computing device such as a
laptop, desktop, notebook, or the like that does not have ingrained telephony capability via the
mobile carrier. Thus, a computing device that utilizes only the Internet, Wi-Fi, or the like to
make phone calls would be an example of a non-phone computing device.
[00224] Referring still to Figure 8, various other components are depicted for system 800.
Specifically, when present, an operating system 1022, applications 1024, modules 1026, and data
1028 are shown as typically residing in one or some combination of computer usable volatile
memory 1008, e.g. random access memory (RAM), and data storage unit 1102. However, it is
appreciated that in some embodiments, operating system 1022 may be stored in other locations
such as on a network or on a flash drive; and that further, operating system 1022 may be
accessed from a remote location via, for example, a coupling to the internet. In one embodiment, the present technology, for example, is stored as an application 1024 or module 1026 in memory locations within RAM I 008 and memory areas within data storage unit 1102. The present
technology may be applied to one or more elements of described computer system 800.
[00225] System 800 also includes one or more signal generating and receiving device(s) 1030
coupled with bus I 004 for enabling system 800 to interface with other electronic devices and
computer systems. Signal generating and receiving device(s) 1030 of the present embodiment
may include wired serial adaptors, modems, and network adaptors, wireless modems, and
wireless network adaptors, and other such communication technology. The signal generating
and receiving device(s) 1030 may work in conjunction with one or more communication
interface(s) 1032 for coupling information to and/or from system 800. Communication interface
1032 may include a serial port, parallel port, Universal Serial Bus (USB), Ethernet port,
Bluetooth, thunderbolt, near field communications port, WiFi, Cellular modem, or other
input/output interface. Communication interface 1032 may physically, electrically, optically, or
wirelessly (e.g., via radio frequency) couple computer system 800 with another device, such as a
mobile telephone, radio, or computer system.
[00226] The computing system 800 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 800.
The claim limitations do not provide a significant improvement over manual application processes and authenticating users in order to allow a user to fill out an application. The specification discloses approaching for obtaining a credit account after finding out information pre-populating forms to a user on a mobile device in order to reduce the amount of work a user has to do when inputting application information (spec ¶ 0002, (spec ¶ 0028). The specification makes clear that the focus of the invention is to applying and obtain a credit account where the amount of data the user needs to enter is reduced solving a problem rooted in the realm of customer key fatigue (human behavior). Therefore, in light of the specification, when considered as a whole, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of applying and completing an application for credit account, validating the credit account and authorizing a transaction based on validation.
The claim limitations do not provide a significant improvement over manual application processes and authenticating users in order to allow a user to fill out an application. The specification discloses approaching for obtaining a credit account after finding out information pre-populating forms to a user on a mobile device in order to reduce the amount of work a user has to do when inputting application information (spec ¶ 0002, (spec ¶ 0028). The specification makes clear that the focus of the invention is to applying and obtain a credit account where the amount of data the user needs to enter is reduced solving a problem rooted in the realm of customer key fatigue (human behavior). Therefore, in light of the specification, when considered as a whole, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of applying and completing an application for credit account, validating the credit account and authorizing a transaction based on validation.
US Patent No. 10,091,349 B1 Rao et al wherein the prior art discloses analytics on retrieved records based on identifiers; US Pub No. 2018/0053252 A1 Koltnow et al – wherein the prior art discloses receiving user specific information, device identifier usable to populate an application form for credit via the mobile device;
With respect to verification codes:
The specification discloses:
[0099] Figure 4A is a screen capture 400 of a web-based credit application as viewed on a user's
computing device shown in accordance with an embodiment. Figure 4B is a screen capture 410
of a verification text to a user's mobile phone shown in accordance with an embodiment. Figure
4C is a screen capture 420 of a web-based credit application requesting the verification code as
viewed on a user's computing device shown in accordance with an embodiment. Figure 4D is a
screen capture 430 of a web-based credit application requesting the verification of found user
information as viewed on a user's computing device shown in accordance with an embodiment.
Figure 4E is a screen capture 440 of a web-based credit application providing the terms and conditions 445 as viewed on a user's computing device shown in accordance with an
embodiment. Figure 4F is a screen capture 450 of a new credit account as viewed on a user's
computing device shown in accordance with an embodiment. Figure 4G is a screen capture 460
of a confirmation that the new credit account information has been sent to the user's mobile
phone as viewed on a user's computing device shown in accordance with an embodiment.
Figure 4H is a screen capture 470 of a text including instructions on putting the new account into
the user's mobile wallet as seen on a user's mobile phone shown in accordance with an
embodiment. Figure 41 is a screen capture 480 of a web-based credit application, with fewer
customer input fields that the web-based credit application as shown in Figure 4A, depicted on
the display of the user's computing device and shown in accordance with an embodiment.
[00118] In one embodiment as shown in Figure 4C, the web-based credit application requests the
verification code response 421 and once it is entered, in one embodiment, the user will click on
the next 422.
PNG
media_image1.png
356
555
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
309
514
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
553
825
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The limitations for receiving and providing the verification code as disclosed in the specification fails to provide an unconventional technical process.
As evidence the examiner provides:
CA 3048577 A1 by Subramanian et al- “utilizing an acquisition system 310, a customer may, via an acquisition application on a customer device, simultaneously apply for a loan to purchase an item… Authentication data may be generated in response to receive data, such as data input on a user device and transmitted to authentication processor 124. The authentication data may be generated based on a phone number, account number, personal code (e.g., PIN and/or password), birthdate, and/or other user-input data. By way of example, authentication processor 124 may receive the user-input data and generate an authentication code, such as a security token, a code generated by using a hash function, and the like. … For example, if a user is requesting authentication from a user device to receive access to an online registry and the authentication module 132 determines that an authentication code should be transmitted to the user device based on data stored in data storage 126 (or from a third party), ….[0072] Authentication data may be generated to be included with a notification, such as an SMS message, an MMS message, an e-mail, a push notification, a voicemail message, and the like. … where authentication data is transmitted in a push notification, the push notification may include a link to open a website, a mobile application, an authentication request notification, and/or an SMS message to input the authentication code and/or response. … an SMS message, MMS message, e-mail, and the like may include a link to direct a customer to input the authentication data and/or authentication response for access to the online registry.” (para 0071-0072); US Pub No. 2018/0005239 A1 by Schlesinger et al- para 0058-0062- wherein the prior art teaches the generation of a unique identifier code by validation app at device, the code can be displayed /scanned by service device or the service device can receive the code from the user at service provider website. (see FIG. 3, FIG. 5C); US Pub No. 2015/0206145 A1 by Tobinai -para 0064-0065 wherein the prior art teaches email contains one-time password for user to obtain card number and information and the applicant accesses specified webpage through user terminal and enters one-time password transmitting the password and the system performs the authentication…when password correct…the notification unit transmits card number and other information”
US Pub No. 2019/0132131 A1 by Clements-“Background” [0002]… For such communications, networked systems and associated information handling systems generally require some form of authentication or validation. Typically, before a user is allowed access to a secure website, network, or online service, the user generally will have to provide an authentication code, or other validation information, such as a user name, password, an authentication certificate, and/or other security information.”; US Pub No. 2018/0063204 A1 by Gruber et al- [0048]… More specifically, typically, when a request to join a telecommunication session is received, a requester is required to enter an authentication code to gain access to the telecommunication session”; US Pub No. 2017/0177985 A1 by Hayashi- “Background” [0004]… However, the conventional multifunction peripheral only displays a list of those print data that is stored in association with the inputted authentication code from among all print data that the user had transmitted from the personal computer. In other words, the user cannot view all print data that the user had transmitted.”’ US Patent No. 9,109,379 B1 by Ranchod “background” - These protocols are typically well-known in the area of banking whereupon in order to access the account record, the person requesting access is required to have access to at least two, separate communications channels with identifying information requesting access being entered using one of the communications channels and a separate, authorisation code is generated and sent to the requestor via an independent communications channel (and typically to an independent device) with access being granted only if the generated authorization code is then entered with the normal identifying information.”; US Pub No. 2014/0344904 A1 by Venkataramani et al- “Background”- “For example, some authentication mechanisms use an authentication token which can provide an value which a user must provide in addition to a username and password to access an application or service (or to authorize a requested transaction). Typically however, users have to manually enter a security code presented on a device each time a user accesses the application or service. ….”; US Pub No. 2003/0140121 A1 by Adams – para 0038 “Further, in accordance with another embodiment of the present invention, call authentication (for example, using an access code) is provided by means of a web-provided authentication code in accordance with any one of a number of methods that are well known to those of ordinary skill in the art. Then, in accordance with this embodiment of the present invention, the user authenticates who he/she is by means of the access code given to him/her by, for example, using a web browser. The access code can be generated by either the audio server, control server or web-server add-in components, the choice of which is installation dependent.”
See also US Pub No. 2015/0358478 A1 by Arazi et al (see para 0009, para 0049); WO 2013086390 A2 by Ohlhausen (para 0005-0006, para 0022); US Pub No. 2016/0012465 A1 by Sharp (see para 0026, para 0039, para 0081); US Pub No. 2013/0218752 A1 by Pawlusiak et al (see para 0002, para 0015, para 0022, para 0050, para 0065, para 0073); CA 3012794 A1 by Billman et al discloses “merely recite the performance of some business practice known from the pre-location information 103 to pre-populate and verify information on a credit application 193 is 120 is prefilled into the application 193. By populating application 193 prior to the applicant, the abandonment rate will be improved as the application 193 application 193 can be simplified”; WO 2016076901 A1 by Kay et al- Auto-population of data fields in an electronic document is known in the art. An example of a system that incorporates auto-population of documents is disclosed in US Patent Application Publication No. US 2014/0249991 A1; US Pub No. 20140279383 A1 by Morgan et al- para 0026 “The applicant populates one or more forms with personal identifying information and financial information. Such population may be done manually, semi-automatically, or automatically. Semi-automatic or automatic population may be undertaken using pre-stored information or automatic completion ("auto-complete") tools known to those of skill in the art.”
The instant application, therefore, still appears to only implement the abstract ideas to the particular technological environments using what is generic components and functions in the related arts. The claim is not patent eligible.
The remaining dependent claims—which impose additional limitations—also fail to claim patent-eligible subject matter because the limitations cannot be considered statutory. In reference to claims 9-14 these dependent claim have also been reviewed with the same analysis as independent claim 8. Claim 9 is directed toward search user information – applying technology to search information for a credit application. Claim 10 is directed toward searching a database. Claim 11 is directed toward utilizing factors such as user specific information to pre-populate the credit application- a business practice. Claim 12 is directed toward obtaining authorization credit application to access location information – insignificant extra solution activity. Claim 13 is directed toward utilizing historical location information to verify location information- is directed toward risk mitigation. Claim 14 is directed toward performing risk analysis which is a fundamental economic transaction.
The dependent claim(s) have been examined individually and in combination with the preceding claims, however they do not cure the deficiencies of claim 8. Where all claims are directed to the same abstract idea, “addressing each claim of the asserted patents [is] unnecessary.” Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat 7 Ass ’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014). If applicant believes the dependent claims 9-14 are directed towards patent eligible subject matter, they are invited to point out the specific limitations in the claim that are directed towards patent eligible subject matter.
In reference Claims 15-20:
STEP 1. Per Step 1 of the two-step analysis, the claims are determined to include a system, as in independent Claim 15 and the dependent claims. Such system fall under the statutory category of "machine." Therefore, the claims are directed to a statutory eligibility category.
STEP 2A Prong 1. System claim 15 corresponds to method claim 1. Therefore, claim 15 has been analyzed and rejected as being directed toward an abstract idea of the categories of concepts directed toward mental processes and market activity previously discussed with respect to claim 1.
STEP 2A Prong 2: System claim 15 functions corresponds to the steps of method claim 1. Therefore, claim 15 has been analyzed and rejected as failing to provide limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application, as previously discussed with respect to claim 1.
STEP 2B; The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to concepts of the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea include “one or more computing system” and “web-based credit application“ are generic with general purpose computer environment and functions. Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the computer at each step of the process is purely conventional.
Functions as recited “accessing”, “stopping”, “providing”, “receiving”, “utilizing”, “prepopulating”, “completing”, “submitting”, “validating”, “obtaining” and “authorizing”-----are some of the most basic functions of a computer.
All of these computer functions are generic, routine, conventional computer activities that are performed only for their conventional uses. See Elec. Power Grp. v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Also see In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("Absent a possible narrower construction of the terms “generating”, “transmitting”, “intercepting”, identifying”, “determining”, “replacing” and “routing' ... are functions can be achieved by any general purpose computer without special programming"). None of these activities are used in some unconventional manner nor do any produce some unexpected result. In short, each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. As to the data operated upon, "even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is 'limited to particular content' or a particular 'source,' that limitation does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract." SAP America, Inc. v. Invest Pic LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of Applicant’s claimed functions add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. The sequence of data reception-analysis modification-transmission is equally generic and conventional. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (sequence of receiving, selecting, offering for exchange, display, allowing access, and receiving payment recited as an abstraction), Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of data retrieval, analysis, modification, generation, display, and transmission), Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of processing, routing, controlling, and monitoring). The ordering of the steps is therefore ordinary and conventional. We conclude that the claims do not provide an inventive concept because the additional elements recited in the claims do not provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
According to 2106.05 well-understood and routine processes to perform the abstract idea is not sufficient to transform the claim into patent eligibility.
[0034] In contrast, a non-phone computing device refers to any computing device such as a
laptop, desktop, notebook, or the like that does not have ingrained telephony capability via the
mobile carrier. Thus, a computing device that utilizes only the Internet, Wi-Fi, or the like to
make phone calls would be an example of a non-phone computing device.
[00224] Referring still to Figure 8, various other components are depicted for system 800.
Specifically, when present, an operating system 1022, applications 1024, modules 1026, and data
1028 are shown as typically residing in one or some combination of computer usable volatile
memory 1008, e.g. random access memory (RAM), and data storage unit 1102. However, it is
appreciated that in some embodiments, operating system 1022 may be stored in other locations
such as on a network or on a flash drive; and that further, operating system 1022 may be
accessed from a remote location via, for example, a coupling to the internet. In one embodiment, the present technology, for example, is stored as an application 1024 or module 1026 in memory locations within RAM I 008 and memory areas within data storage unit 1102. The present
technology may be applied to one or more elements of described computer system 800.
[00225] System 800 also includes one or more signal generating and receiving device(s) 1030
coupled with bus I 004 for enabling system 800 to interface with other electronic devices and
computer systems. Signal generating and receiving device(s) 1030 of the present embodiment
may include wired serial adaptors, modems, and network adaptors, wireless modems, and
wireless network adaptors, and other such communication technology. The signal generating
and receiving device(s) 1030 may work in conjunction with one or more communication
interface(s) 1032 for coupling information to and/or from system 800. Communication interface
1032 may include a serial port, parallel port, Universal Serial Bus (USB), Ethernet port,
Bluetooth, thunderbolt, near field communications port, WiFi, Cellular modem, or other
input/output interface. Communication interface 1032 may physically, electrically, optically, or
wirelessly (e.g., via radio frequency) couple computer system 800 with another device, such as a
mobile telephone, radio, or computer system.
[00226] The computing system 800 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 800.
The claim limitations do not provide a significant improvement over manual application processes and authenticating users in order to allow a user to fill out an application. The specification discloses approaching for obtaining a credit account after finding out information pre-populating forms to a user on a mobile device in order to reduce the amount of work a user has to do when inputting application information (spec ¶ 0002, (spec ¶ 0028). The specification makes clear that the focus of the invention is to applying and obtain a credit account where the amount of data the user needs to enter is reduced solving a problem rooted in the realm of customer key fatigue (human behavior). Therefore, in light of the specification, when considered as a whole, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of applying and completing an application for credit account, validating the credit account and authorizing a transaction based on validation.
With respect to security codes:
The specification discloses:
[0099] Figure 4A is a screen capture 400 of a web-based credit application as viewed on a user's
computing device shown in accordance with an embodiment. Figure 4B is a screen capture 410
of a verification text to a user's mobile phone shown in accordance with an embodiment. Figure
4C is a screen capture 420 of a web-based credit application requesting the verification code as
viewed on a user's computing device shown in accordance with an embodiment. Figure 4D is a
screen capture 430 of a web-based credit application requesting the verification of found user
information as viewed on a user's computing device shown in accordance with an embodiment.
Figure 4E is a screen capture 440 of a web-based credit application providing the terms and conditions 445 as viewed on a user's computing device shown in accordance with an embodiment. Figure 4F is a screen capture 450 of a new credit account as viewed on a user's computing device shown in accordance with an embodiment. Figure 4G is a screen capture 460 of a confirmation that the new credit account information has been sent to the user's mobile phone as viewed on a user's computing device shown in accordance with an embodiment. Figure 4H is a screen capture 470 of a text including instructions on putting the new account into the user's mobile wallet as seen on a user's mobile phone shown in accordance with an embodiment. Figure 41 is a screen capture 480 of a web-based credit application, with fewer customer input fields that the web-based credit application as shown in Figure 4A, depicted on
the display of the user's computing device and shown in accordance with an embodiment.
[00118] In one embodiment as shown in Figure 4C, the web-based credit application requests the
verification code response 421 and once it is entered, in one embodiment, the user will click on
the next 422.
PNG
media_image1.png
356
555
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
309
514
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
553
825
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The limitations for receiving and providing the verification code as disclosed in the specification fails to provide an unconventional technical process.
As evidence the examiner provides:
CA 3048577 A1 by Subramanian et al- “utilizing an acquisition system 310, a customer may, via an acquisition application on a customer device, simultaneously apply for a loan to purchase an item… Authentication data may be generated in response to receive data, such as data input on a user device and transmitted to authentication processor 124. The authentication data may be generated based on a phone number, account number, personal code (e.g., PIN and/or password),
birthdate, and/or other user-input data. By way of example, authentication processor 124 may receive the user-input data and generate an authentication code, such as a security token, a code generated by using a hash function, and the like. … For example, if a user is requesting authentication from a user device to receive access to an online registry and the authentication module 132 determines that an authentication code should be transmitted to the user device based on data stored in data storage 126 (or from a third party), ….[0072] Authentication data may be generated to be included with a notification, such as an SMS message, an MMS message, an e-mail, a push notification, a voicemail message, and the like. … where authentication data is transmitted in a push notification, the push notification may include a link to open a website, a mobile application, an authentication request notification, and/or an SMS message to input the authentication code and/or response. … an SMS message, MMS
message, e-mail, and the like may include a link to direct a customer to input the
authentication data and/or authentication response for access to the online registry.” (para 0071-0072); US Pub No. 2018/0005239 A1 by Schlesinger et al- para 0058-0062- wherein the prior art teaches the generation of a unique identifier code by validation app at device, the code can be displayed /scanned by service device or the service device can receive the code from the user at service provider website. (see FIG. 3, FIG. 5C); US Pub No. 2015/0206145 A1 by Tobinai -para 0064-0065 wherein the prior art teaches email contains one-time password for user to obtain card number and information and the applicant accesses specified webpage through user terminal and enters one-time password transmitting the password and the system performs the authentication…when password correct…the notification unit transmits card number and other information”
US Pub No. 2019/0132131 A1 by Clements-“Background” [0002]… For such communications, networked systems and associated information handling systems generally require some form of authentication or validation. Typically, before a user is allowed access to a secure website, network, or online service, the user generally will have to provide an authentication code, or other validation information, such as a user name, password, an authentication certificate, and/or other security information.”; US Pub No. 2018/0063204 A1 by Gruber et al- [0048]… More specifically, typically, when a request to join a telecommunication session is received, a requester is required to enter an authentication code to gain access to the telecommunication session”; US Pub No. 2017/0177985 A1 by Hayashi- “Background” [0004]… However, the conventional multifunction peripheral only displays a list of those print data that is stored in association with the inputted authentication code from among all print data that the user had transmitted from the personal computer. In other words, the user cannot view all print data that the user had transmitted.”’ US Patent No. 9,109,379 B1 by Ranchod “background” - These protocols are typically well-known in the area of banking whereupon in order to access the account record, the person requesting access is required to have access to at least two, separate communications channels with identifying information requesting access being entered using one of the communications channels and a separate, authorisation code is generated and sent to the requestor via an independent communications channel (and typically to an independent device) with access being granted only if the generated authorization code is then entered with the normal identifying information.”; US Pub No. 2014/0344904 A1 by Venkataramani et al- “Background”- “For example, some authentication mechanisms use an authentication token which can provide an value which a user must provide in addition to a username and password to access an application or service (or to authorize a requested transaction). Typically however, users have to manually enter a security code presented on a device each time a user accesses the application or service. ….”; US Pub No. 2003/0140121 A1 by Adams – para 0038 “Further, in accordance with another embodiment of the present invention, call authentication (for example, using an access code) is provided by means of a web-provided authentication code in accordance with any one of a number of methods that are well known to those of ordinary skill in the art. Then, in accordance with this embodiment of the present invention, the user authenticates who he/she is by means of the access code given to him/her by, for example, using a web browser. The access code can be generated by either the audio server, control server or web-server add-in components, the choice of which is installation dependent.” US Patent No. 10,091,349 B1 Rao et al wherein the prior art discloses analytics on retrieved records based on identifiers; US Pub No. 2018/0053252 A1 Koltnow et al – wherein the prior art discloses receiving user specific information, device identifier usable to populate an application form for credit via the mobile device;
See also US Pub No. 2015/0358478 A1 by Arazi et al (see para 0009, para 0049); WO 2013086390 A2 by Ohlhausen (para 0005-0006, para 0022); US Pub No. 2016/0012465 A1 by Sharp (see para 0026, para 0039, para 0081); US Pub No. 2013/0218752 A1 by Pawlusiak et al (see para 0002, para 0015, para 0022, para 0050, para 0065, para 0073); CA 3012794 A1 by Billman et al discloses “merely recite the performance of some business practice known from the pre-location information 103 to pre-populate and verify information on a credit application 193 is 120 is prefilled into the application 193. By populating application 193 prior to the applicant, the abandonment rate will be improved as the application 193 application 193 can be simplified”; WO 2016076901 A1 by Kay et al- Auto-population of data fields in an electronic document is known in the art. An example of a system that incorporates auto-population of documents is disclosed in US Patent Application Publication No. US 2014/0249991 A1; US Pub No. 20140279383 A1 by Morgan et al- para 0026 “The applicant populates one or more forms with personal identifying information and financial information. Such population may be done manually, semi-automatically, or automatically. Semi-automatic or automatic population may be undertaken using pre-stored information or automatic completion ("auto-complete") tools known to those of skill in the art.”
The instant application, therefore, still appears to only implement the abstract ideas to the particular technological environments using what is generic components and functions in the related arts. The claim is not patent eligible.
The remaining dependent claims—which impose additional limitations—also fail to claim patent-eligible subject matter because the limitations cannot be considered statutory. In reference to claims 16-20 these dependent claim have also been reviewed with the same analysis as independent claim 15. Claim 16 is directed toward data utilized. Claim 17 is directed toward searching a database. Claim 18 is directed toward utilizing factors such as user specific information to populate the credit application- a business practice. Claim 19 is directed toward obtaining authorization, receiving data and verifying information is directed toward a business practice. Claim 20 is directed toward preforming risk analysis which is a fundamental economic transaction.
The dependent claim(s) have been examined individually and in combination with the preceding claims, however they do not cure the deficiencies of claim 15. Where all claims are directed to the same abstract idea, “addressing each claim of the asserted patents [is] unnecessary.” Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat 7 Ass ’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014). If applicant believes the dependent claims 16-20 are directed towards patent eligible subject matter, they are invited to point out the specific limitations in the claim that are directed towards patent eligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3 and 6-7, Claims 8-10 and 12-14; Claims 15-17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 8,660,943 B1 by Chirehdast (Chirehdast) in view of US Pub No. 2019/0043126 A1 by Billman et al. (Billman) and further in view of WO 2014/008528 A1 by Koch et al (Koch)
In reference to Claim 1:
Chirehdast teaches:
(Currently Amended) A method ((Chirehdast) in at least Abstract) comprising:
accessing, via a user's computing system, a web-based credit application process hosted by a credit provider's computer system ((Chirehdast) in at least FIG. 2A, FIG. 3A wherein the prior art illustrates user invoking lending product app; Col 5 lines 3-Col 6 lines 1-5, Col 10 lines 30-Col 11 lines 1-10, Col 11 lines 32-61);
inputting, via said user’s computing system, a user ID in a user ID field and a mobile phone number for a mobile device in a phone number field of a web-page of said web-based credit application process system, wherein said user's computing system is a different device than said user's mobile device ((Chirehdast) in at least FIG. 11-12, Col 5 lines 12-22 lines 57-61, Col 6 lines 10-23, lines 44-Col 7 lines 1-6, lines 42-46, Col 9 lines 28-41, Col 10 lines 6-16, Col 12 lines 29-39, Col 13 lines 47-60, col 33 lines 10-14, Col 53 lines 26-39);
electronically obtaining, at said credit provider's computer, a computer system identifier associated with said user's computing system in response to said user's computing system interacting with said web-page of said web-based credit application process ((Chirehdast) in at least FIG. 15; FIG. 36A; Col 6 lines 44-54, Col 9 lines 28-41, Col 13 lines 43-55);
electronically transmitting an electronic message from said credit provider's computer system to said mobile device, said electronic message comprising a secure verification code ((Chirehdast) in at least Col 8 lines 48-58 wherein the prior art teaches scanning software ID, PKI signatures, Col 13 lines 47-58, Col 16 lines 1-5, Col 36 lines 1-5, Col 37 lines 35-41, Col 45 lines 48-63);
receiving, at said mobile device, said electronic message comprising:
said secure verification code ((Chirehdast) in at least Col 8 lines 48-58 wherein the prior art teaches scanning software ID, PKI signatures, Col 13 lines 47-58, Col 16 lines 1-5, Col 36 lines 1-5, Col 37 lines 35-41, Col 45 lines 48-63); and…
transmitting, from said mobile device, said historical location information stored in a memory of said mobile device said historical location information comprising a plurality of locations ((Chirehdast) in at least Col 8 lines 49, lines 54-55), …
receiving, at said credit provider's computer system, said historical location information ((Chirehdast) in at least ((Chirehdast) in at least FIG. 6, FIG. 14, FIG. 18A; Col 8 lines 49, lines 54-55, Col 20 lines 38-42, Col 23 lines 52-58, Col 27 lines 18-49Col 48 lines 23-36; Table 7); …
utilizing, at said credit provider's computer system, said computer system identifier said mobile phone number, and said user ID, to perform a search for user specific information ((Chirehdast) in at least FIG. 2A-B, FIG. 3A; Col 6 lines 22-28, lines 55-Col 7 lines 1-6, Col 11 lines 38-61, Col 15 lines 23-40, Col 37 lines 8-20, lines 28-54, lines 60-Col 38 lines 1-11, Col 45 lines 50-58);
accessing, via said user's computing system, said user specific information web-page of said web-based credit application process ((Chirehdast) in at least FIG. 2A-B, FIG. 3A; Abstract; Col 6 lines 22-28, lines 55-Col 7 lines 1-6, Col 11 lines 38-61, Col 15 lines 23-40, Col 37 lines 8-20, lines 28-54, lines 60-Col 38 lines 1-11, Col 45 lines 50-58);
receiving, from said user's computing system and at said user specific information web- page, a verification of said user specific information from said user ((Chirehdast) in at least FIG. 4B, FIG. 15, FIG. 25, Col 8 lines 59-Col 9 lines 1-3, Col 13 lines 32-58, Col 15 lines 25-40, Col 53 lines 2-28); and
Chirehdast suggest but does not explicitly teach:
inputting, at said user's computing system, said secure verification code ((Chirehdast) in at least Col 15 line 40) in said verification field of said another web-page of said web-based credit application process ((Chirehdast) in at least Col 9 lines 28-34, Col 45 lines 5-17);
confirming, at said credit provider's computer system, a match between said secure verification code input in said verification field said secure verification code electronically transmitted to said mobile device, wherein said match authenticates said mobile device and said user's computing system ((Chirehdast) in at least Col 9 lines 28-34, Col 45 lines 5-17);
In light of KSR, the prior art Chirehdast provides some teaching, suggestion or motivation in teaching of secure verification code, the prior art does teach public/private key and other passcodes and in knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art that public/private key and passcodes used for security suggest the claimed limitation. Therefore, although Chirehdast does not explicitly state the inputted verification code is matched based on the teaches of passcodes/public-private keys of the art and in combination with knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art that a submitted passcode matches a stored credential and if matched the authentication succeeds with a reasonable expectation of success.
Chirehdast does not explicitly teach:
a command for a pre-defined time range of historical location information stored on said mobile device;
transmitting, from said mobile device, said historical location information stored in a memory of said mobile device said historical location information comprising a plurality of locations with date and time stamps ;
determining, at said credit provider's computer system, a user's home address from said historical location information, said determining comprising:
sorting, at said credit provider's computer, said historical location information into a plurality of time periods, wherein at least one time period is an overnight time period; and
identifying a most often occurring location for said overnight time period as said user's home address;
stopping any further progress within said web-based credit application process until said secure verification code is received in a verification field of another web-page of said web- based credit application process;
presenting, within a user specific information web-page of said web- based credit application process, a result of said search for said user specific information;
prepopulating, within a credit application web-page of said web-based credit application process, a plurality of information fields of a credit application with said user specific information and said home address
Billman teaches:
receiving, at said mobile device ((Billman) in at least para 0014, para 0018, para 0020), said electronic message comprising:
a command for a pre-defined time range of historical location information stored on said mobile device ((Billman) in at least para 0020-0022, para 0032-0033, para 0062);
transmitting, from said mobile device, said historical location information stored in a memory of said mobile device said historical location information comprising a plurality of locations with date and time stamps ((Billman) in at least para 0021, para 0054, para 0061-0063);
determining, at said credit provider's computer system, a user's home address from said historical location information ((Billman) in at least para 0061-0063, para 0071), said determining comprising:
sorting, at said credit provider's computer, said historical location information into a plurality of time periods, wherein at least one time period is an overnight time period ((Billman) in at least para 0032, para 0061-0063, para 0071); and
identifying a most often occurring location for said overnight time period as said user's home address ((Billman) in at least para 0032, para 0061-0063, para 0071);
Both Chirehdast and Billman are directed toward pre-populating credit applications using user information identified and retrieved/received. Billman teaches the motivation of using position location information to pre-populate a credit application to include a verification risk assessment process by utilizing frequency of location over different time periods verifying user home address in order to detect fraud. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of effective filing the invention was made to modify user home address information of Chirehdast to include utilizing over different periods of time location historical for identifying likelihood of home address of Billman since Billman teaches the motivation of using position location information to pre-populate a credit application to include a verification risk assessment process by utilizing frequency of location over different time periods verifying user home address in order to detect fraud.
Koch teaches:
inputting, via said user’s computing system, a user ID in a user ID field and a mobile phone number for a mobile device in a phone number field of a web-page of to said web-based credit application process, wherein said user’s computer system is a different device than said mobile device ((Koch) in at least para 0003-0004, para 0028-0029 wherein the prior art teaches personal information including user’s phone number provided by first computing device which may be a smart phone, personal digital assistant and like devices and second user computing device may be desktop, laptop, tablet and other like devices wherein the first device may include auto form filling module)
inputting, at said user’s computing system, said secure verification code in said verification field of said another web-page of said web-based credit application system ((Koch) in at least para 0044, para 0046)
receiving, at said mobile device, said electronic message comprising: said secure verification code ((Koch) in at least para 0031-0033 wherein the prior art teaches generating unique code that is sent to a second device, the first computing device receiving unique code and auto form filling module enables user to input unique code via user interface and communicates unique code to server via network, para 0046-0047);
confirming, at said credit provider's computer system, a match between said secure verification code input in said verification field said secure verification code electronically transmitted to said mobile device, wherein said match authenticates said mobile device and said user's computing system ((Koch) in at least para 0006, para 0034, para 0044, para 0049)
stopping any further progress within said web-based credit application process until said secure verification code is received in a verification field of another web-page of said web-based credit application process ((Koch) in at least para 0033-0034 wherein the prior art teaches determining unique code received an upon successful validating code identifies port numbers associated with connections established with first computing device and second computing device based on validated unique code );
utilizing at said credit provider’s computer system, said computer system identifier, said mobile phone number and said user ID, to perform a search for user specific information ((Koch) in at least abstract; FIG. 1B; para 0020, para 0036-0039, para 0044, para 0056-0057, para 0070);
presenting, within a user specific information web-page of said web- based credit application process, a result of said search for said user specific information ((Koch) in at least para 0029-0030, para 0039, para 0042)
accessing, via said user’s computing system, said user specific information web-page of said web-based credit application process ((Koch) in at least para 0035, para 0041-0042)
receiving, from said user's computing system and at said user specific information web- page, a verification of said user specific information from said user ((Koch) in at least para 0045-0046, para 0068, para 0049)
prepopulating, within a credit application web-page of said web-based credit application process, a plurality of information fields of a credit application with said user specific information and said home address ((Koch) in at least FIG. 3D; abstract; para 0018-0019, para 0034-0036, para 0046-0051, para 0053);
According to KSR common sense rationale, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious. The prior art Chirehdast contained a device which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of a different electronic device. The prior art Koch provides evidence that the substituted components and their functions where known in the art and teaches that such substitutions are available. Accordingly, based on the teaching of Koch, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another and results of the substitution would have been predictable.
Both Chirehdast and Koch teach applying computer technologies to perform the operations of the application process. Koch teaches the motivation that the utilizing terms for performing the computer application process can be implemented by an electronic computing device listing examples including mobile phone and desktop computers for manipulating and transforming the data for the credit application. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of effective filing the invention was made to modify the electronic device to perform specific operations of the claimed to include a desktop computer of Koch since Koch teaches the motivation that the utilizing terms for performing the computer application process can be implemented bay an electronic computing device listing examples including mobile phone and desktop computers for manipulating and transforming the data for the credit application
Both Chirehdast and Koch are directed toward creating an online account with financial institutions/services where authentication processes are applied in the application process. Koch teaches the motivation of protecting sensitive information stored in a server from being misused by third party by generating a code which can be captured for identifying the user where the code can then be transmitted to the online server for the online account. Koch teaches the motivation of enabling a user to mark fields in the profile form including user ID, mobile device ID ) as sensitive information that can or cannot be populated when populating data fields of a form in order to provide additional customized security to sensitive information of the user. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of effective filing the invention was made to modify the user specific information useable for populating a credit application of Chirehdast to include utilizing utilizing the computer system ID, the mobile phone ID, and the user ID as taught by Koch since Koch teaches the motivation of enabling a user to mark fields in the profile form including user ID, mobile device ID ) as sensitive information that can or cannot be populated when populating data fields of a form in order to provide additional customized security to sensitive information of the user
In reference to Claim 2:
The combination of Chirehdast, Billman and Koch discloses the limitations of independent claim 1. Chirehdast further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 2
(Currently Amended) The method of Claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), futher comprising:
performing a proprietary database search for said user specific information ((Chirehdast) in at least FIG. 2A-B, FIG. 3A; Col 6 lines 22-28, lines 44-Col 7 lines 1-6, Col 9 lines 28-41, Col 11 lines 38-61 wherein the prior art teaches the lending product application retrieves all customer relevant information form internal systems databases; Col 15 lines 23-40)
In reference to Claim 3:
The combination of Chirehdast, Billman and Koch discloses the limitations of dependent claim 2. Chirehdast further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 3
(Currently Amended) The method of Claim 2 (see rejection of claim 2 above), comprising:
Chirehdast does not explicitly teach:
performing a secondary source database search for said user specific information
Billman teaches:
performing a secondary source database search for said user specific information ((Billman) in at least FIG. 1B, FIG. 4; para 0047, para 0049, para 0051-0052).
Both Chirehdast and Billman teach retrieving user information from databases for loan applications. Billman teaches the motivation of searching a second source data based in order to validate specific user information for an application. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of effective filing the invention was made to modify the searching retrieving of customer data from databases of Chirehdast to include searching at least a second database as taught by Billman since Billman teaches the motivation of searching a second source data based in order to validate specific user information for an application.
In reference to Claim 6:
The combination of Chirehdast, Billman and Koch discloses the limitations of independent claim 1. Chirehdast further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 6.
(Currently Amended) The method of Claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), further comprising:
obtaining authorization for said web-based credit application process to access said historical location information ((Chirehdast) in at least Col 10 lines 6-18, Col 29 lines 53-55, Col 45 lines 45-60, Col 48 lines 24-29)); and
utilizing said historical location information to verify any location information provided to said web-based credit application process ((Chirehdast) in at least Col 10 lines 6-18, Col 29 lines 53-55, Col 45 lines 45-60, Col 48 lines 24-29)
In reference to Claim 7:
The combination of Chirehdast, Billman and Koch discloses the limitations of dependent claim 6. Chirehdast further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 7.
(Currently amended) The method of Claim 6 (see rejection of claim 6 above), further comprising:
performing a fraud risk assessment based on a result of said verifying.((Chirehdast) in at least Col 11 lines 38-61, Col 37 lines 7-20)
In reference to Claim 8:
The combination of Chirehdast, Billman and Koch discloses the limitations of independent claim 8.
The computer readable storage medium claim 8 instructions correspond to the method steps of method claim 1. The additional limitations recited in claim 8 that go beyond the limitations of claim 1 include the A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions embodied therein that when executed cause a computer system to perform a method ((Chirehdast) in at least Col 54 lines 10-26) steps that correspond to claim 1: Therefore, the body of claim 8 instructions have been analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claim 1.
In reference to claim 9:
The combination of Chirehdast, Billman and Koch discloses the limitations of independent claim 8. Chirehdast further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 9.
Medium claim 9 corresponds to method claim 2. Therefore, claim 9 has been analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claim 2
In reference to claim 10:
The combination of Chirehdast, Billman and Koch discloses the limitations of dependent claim 9. Chirehdast further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 10.
Medium claim 10 corresponds to method claim 3. Therefore, claim 10 has been analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claim 3
In reference to claim 12:
The combination of Chirehdast, Billman and Koch discloses the limitations of independent claim 8. Chirehdast further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 12.
(Currently Amended) The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of Claim 8 (see rejection of claim 8 above), further comprising:
obtaining authorization for said web-based credit application process to access said historical location information. ((Chirehdast) in at least Col 10 lines 6-18, Col 29 lines 53-55, Col 45 lines 45-60, Col 48 lines 24-29)
In reference to claim 13:
The combination of Chirehdast, Billman and Koch discloses the limitations of dependent claim 12. Chirehdast further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 13.
(Currently Amended) The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of Claim 12 (see rejection of claim 12 above), further comprising:
utilizing said historical location information to verify any location information provided to said web-based credit application process. ((Chirehdast) in at least Col 10 lines 6-18, Col 29 lines 53-55, Col 45 lines 45-60, Col 48 lines 24-29)
In reference to claim 14:
The combination of Chirehdast, Billman and Koch discloses the limitations of dependent claim 13. Chirehdast further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 14.
(Original) The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of Claim 13 (see rejection of claim 13 above), further comprising:
performing a fraud risk assessment based on a result of said verifying. .((Chirehdast) in at least Col 11 lines 38-61, Col 37 lines 7-20, Col 45 lines 55-63)
In reference to claim 15:
The combination of Chirehdast, Billman and Koch discloses the limitations of independent claim 15.
System claim 15 functions correspond to the method steps of method claim 1. The additional limitations recited in claim 15 that go beyond the limitations of claim 1 include
a system comprising: one or more devices ((Chirehdast) in at least FIG. 11; Col 1 lines 50-57, Col 53 lines 63-Col 54 lines 1-33 ) to perform the functions that correspond with the steps of claim 1: Therefore, the body of claim 15 functions have been analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claim 1.
In reference to claim 16:
The combination of Chirehdast, Billman and Koch discloses the limitations of independent claim 15. Chirehdast further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 16.
System claim 16 corresponds to method claim 2. Therefore, claim 16 has been analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claim 2
In reference to claim 17:
The combination of Chirehdast, Billman and Koch discloses the limitations of dependent claim 16. Chirehdast further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 17.
System claim 13 corresponds to method claim 3. Therefore, claim 17 has been analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claim 3
In reference to claim 19:
The combination of Chirehdast, Billman and Koch discloses the limitations of independent claim 15. Chirehdast further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 19
(Currently Amended) The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of Claim 8 (see rejection of claim 8 above), further comprising:
obtain authorization for said web-based credit application process to access historical location information. ((Chirehdast) in at least Col 10 lines 6-18, Col 29 lines 53-55, Col 45 lines 45-60, Col 48 lines 24-29)
Claims 4 of claim 1 above, Claim 11 of claim 8 above, and claim 18 and 20 of claim `15 above, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 8,660,943 B1 by Chirehdast (Chirehdast) in view of US Pub No. 2019/0043126 A1 by Billman et al. (Billman) in view of WO 2014/008528 A1 by Koch et al (Koch) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Pub No. 2018/0053252 A1 by Knoltnow et al. (Knoltnow)
In reference to Claim 4:
The combination of Chirehdast, Billman and Koch discloses the limitations of independent claim 1. Chirehdast further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 4
(Currently Amended) The method of Claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), further comprising:
Chirehdast does not explicitly teach:
utilizing a confidence factor threshold to validate said user specific information, such that only user specific information above said confidence factor threshold is utilized to pre-populate said plurality of information fields of said credit application
Koltnow teaches:
utilizing a confidence factor threshold to validate said user specific information, such that only user specific information above said confidence factor threshold is utilized to pre-populate said plurality of information fields of said credit application.((Koltnow) in at least para 0041, para 0069-0070, para 0072, Claim 3-4, Claim 12)
Both Chirehdast and Koltnow teach utilizing thresholds in analyzing data for loan applications. Koltnow teaches the motivation of applying a confidence factor threshold in order to validate records found. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of effective filing the invention was made to modify the threshold applied in analysis of Chirehdast to include threshold applied to record validity of Koltnow since Koltnow teaches the motivation of applying a confidence factor threshold in order to validate records found.
In reference to claim 11:
The combination of Chirehdast, Billman and Koch discloses the limitations of independent claim 8. Chirehdast further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 11.
Medium claim 11 corresponds to method claim 4. Therefore, claim 11 has been analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claim 4
In reference to claim 18:
The combination of Chirehdast, Billman and Koch discloses the limitations of independent claim 15. Chirehdast further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 18.
(currently Amended) The system of Claim 15 (see rejection of claim 15 above), further comprising: one or more devices to:
Chirehdast does not explicitly teach:
utilize a confidence factor threshold to validate said user specific information, such that only user specific information above said confidence factor threshold is utilized to prepopulate said plurality of information fields of said credit application.
Koltnow teaches:
utilize a confidence factor threshold to validate said user specific information, such that only user specific information above said confidence factor threshold is utilized to prepopulate said plurality of information fields of said credit application..((Koltnow) in at least para 0041, para 0069-0070, para 0072, Claim 3-4, Claim 12)
Both Chirehdast and Koltnow teach utilizing thresholds in analyzing data for loan applications. Koltnow teaches the motivation of applying a confidence factor threshold in order to validate records found. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of effective filing the invention was made to modify the threshold applied in analysis of Chirehdast to include threshold applied to record validity of Koltnow since Koltnow teaches the motivation of applying a confidence factor threshold in order to validate records found.
In reference to claim 20:
The combination of Chirehdast, Billman and Koch discloses the limitations of dependent claim 19. Chirehdast further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 20
(Currently amended) The system of Claim 19 (see rejection of claim 19 above), further comprising:
Chirehdast does not explicitly teach:
one or more devices to: utilize said historical location information to verify any location information provided to said web-based credit application process; and
perform a fraud risk assessment based on a result of said verifying.
Koltnow teaches:
one or more devices ((Koltnow) in at least FIG. 1A-B, FIG. 5; para 0023, para 0052, para 0095)to: utilize said historical location information to verify any location information provided to said web-based credit application process ((Koltnow) in at least para 0023, para 0043, para 0058, para 0087, para 0088, para 0089); and
perform a fraud risk assessment based on a result of said verifying. .((Koltnow) in at least para 0042-0043)
Both Chirehdast and Koltnow teach collecting location information risk assessment. Koltnow teaches the motivation of utilizing location in order to reduce fraud risk. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of effective filing the invention was made to modify the fraud assessment and use of location data of Chirehdast to include the teaching of Koltnow since Koltnow teaches the motivation of utilizing location in order to reduce fraud risk.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARY M GREGG whose telephone number is (571)270-5050. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Christine Behncke can be reached at 571-272-8103. 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.
/MARY M GREGG/Examiner, Art Unit 3695
Prosecution Insights