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 Final Office Action in response to communications received November 17, 2025. Claim(s) 5 has canceled. Claims 1, 8 and 15 have been amended. No new claims have been added. Therefore, claims 1-4 and 6-20 are pending and addressed below.
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
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS submitted 11/17/2025 has been reviewed and considered.
Response to Amendment/Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant's arguments filed November 17, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks applicant recites the limitations arguing that under prong 1, the claim limitation do not recite a mental process, pointing to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)III. Applicant’s argument is persuasive, however, the claim limitations are still directed toward abstract subject matter under step 2a prong 1 in the abstract category of methods of organizing human activity. The rejection is maintained.
In the remarks applicant argues that the claimed limitations are not directed toward legal interactions (credit applications) or commercial interactions (authentication for a transaction process). Applicant points to Alice/Mayo test and Genetic Techs Ltd v Merial LLC and DDR Holdings, which provide guidance for patent eligibility analysis. Applicant recites the limitations, emphasizing the limitations “accessing…web-based credit application system”, “populating…the credit application with …user specific information”, “accessing….prepopulated credit application” and “receiving …a verification of said prepopulated user specific information…”. Applicant points to example 47, claim 3 where the claim as a whole improved the technical field of network intrusion detection, the claimed subject matter, provides improvement to a computer system in the realm of obtaining user specific information. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. The examiner notes that applicant does not identify unlike as found in example 47 claim 3 the problem rooted in the technology itself but instead merely states addressing key fatigue found in credit applications. The claimed limitations when considered as a whole, the claimed subject matter focuses on a credit application and authorization process for the application. The specification discloses para 0030 and para 0032 that the present invention is to provide a process for applying and obtaining a credit account for mobile credit acquisition with form population which is necessarily rooted in computer technology to overcome a problem of customer key fatigue and to provide an increased fraud protection due to obtaining customer information used in the application obtained from a reliable source and auto-filled into the application for the credit account. The specification discloses that the purpose of the population of the application is to allow the applicant to complete the application before the user becomes frustrated, distracted, overwhelmed or the like as the percentage of applicant’s completing the application form is inversely related to the number of keystrokes required by the applicant to complete the application (para 0027-0029). The specification makes clear that “key fatigue” is related not to a problem rooted in technology but rather a problem in human behavior. The rejection is maintained.
In the remarks Applicant argues the limitations recites additional elements providing improvement to the functioning of a computer that includes a specific authentication protocol for authenticating two of user devices and then using a device identifier from each of the two devices in conjunction with a user’s ID to search and obtain user specific information. Applicant argues that the previous user ID elements (name, address, phone number) is overwhelming as a search engine can return thousands of results for a given user and include information that may be incorrect. Applicant argues that by verifying user’s mobile phone and computing system as claimed provide enhanced process by incorporating a plurality of refining elements including computer system ID associated with user’s authenticated computing system, mobile phone ID associated with user’s authenticated mobile device in addition to a user’s ID. The use of the claimed specific ID elements narrow the search performance of the computer resulting in less data ensuring data is more relevant and real. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Applicant’s argument that the use of device identifiers versus biometric identifiers, applicant’s argument is not persuasive. The use of one identifier data (para 00106) for another to perform similar use for searching of accounts does not change or improve upon any of the underlying technology (users’ computing device, user’s mobile device, web-based credit application system). As claimed the identifiers applied is merely data content and does not change or modify the searching operations it merely applied different categories of identifying data. The rejection is maintained.
In the remarks applicant argues that under step 2B, the claimed limitations to generate additional search elements will improve the computer functions with more focused accurate set of results from the search. The claimed limitations therefor, quality as “significantly more” providing the “inventive concept” furnished by the above additional element recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea. Accordingly the independent claim(s) 1, 8 and 15 overcomes the 101 rejection. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The device identifiers are not additional elements beyond the abstract idea, instead are abstract subject matter itself. Accordingly, since the “identifiers” argued are abstract themselves, the “identifiers” to not qualify as significantly more than the abstract idea. The rejection is maintained.
In the remarks applicant argues that based on the patent eligibility of the independent claims 1, 8 and 15, the corresponding dependent claims 2-4, 6-7, 9-14 and 16-20 are also rejected under 35 USC 101. The examiner respectfully disagrees. See response above, the rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant's arguments filed November 17, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks applicant recites the limitations, arguing that the prior art references fail to teach “receiving, on the user's mobile device, a secure verification code from said web-based credit application system”, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The prior art reference Chirehdast teaches in at least Col 8 lines 48-54 wherein the prior art teaches security verifications (tel. number, hardware/software ID or numbers/codes; authentication methods PKI, digital signatures, other biometrics), Col 13 lines 47-58 wherein the prior art teaches establishing security measures including PINs, phone number, identification serial number, Sim card number, transmitted to host receivables/servicing system or any other system, Col 15 lines 19-40 wherein the prior art teaches financial application loaded with security module and user mobile device display bar code, the application reads/ocrs codes
In the remarks applicant recites the limitations, arguing that the prior art references fail to teach “providing, via the user's computing system, the secure verification code to said web- based credit application system”, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The prior art reference Chirehdast teaches in at least Col 15 lines 19-40 wherein the prior art teaches financial application loaded with security module and user mobile device display bar code, the application reads/ocrs codes
In the remarks applicant recites the limitations, arguing that the prior art references fail to teach “stopping any further progress until said secure verification code is received at said web- based credit application system, wherein said receiving of said secure verification code at said web-based credit application system authenticates said user's mobile device and said user's computing system.", the examiner respectfully disagrees. The prior art Chirehdast teaches “stopping any further progress until …[authentication process is met for transaction], Col 15 lines 12-24 wherein the prior art teaches financial institution loaded application on phone and security module verifies user, Col 45 lines 48-63 wherein the prior art reaches customer enter PIN in mobile device app, the App provides security identifying information to ATM (financial institution system) and once validation completed process for transaction completed. The prior art Koch teaches para 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. Although the prior art does not recite the language “stopping”, both Chirehdast and Koch require and make authenticating and validation using a unique code a condition for the transaction process to continue. Based on common sense rationale, with the teaching of both Chirehdast and Koch which require the codes entered to be verified in order to process the transaction and knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, if the process is allowed to proceed once the codes are verified, then if the codes are not verified the process would be stopped, since the solution in the art is a finite number of solutions (proceed if codes match which is expressly stated in the art) then it is obvious if the codes do not match, the process would not proceed. Accordingly the prior art teaches and suggest the claimed limitation as there is a finite number of predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success.
In the remarks applicant recites the limitations, arguing that the prior art references fail to teach “receiving, at the web-based credit application system, a computer system identifier (ID) associated with the user's authenticated computing system”, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The prior art Koltnow in combination with Chirehdast teaches “para 0063-0064 wherein the prior art teaches receiving URL leading to company page asking for user ID”
In the remarks applicant recites the limitations, arguing that the prior art references fail to teach “receiving, at the web-based credit application system, a mobile phone ID associated with the user's authenticated mobile device”, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The prior art reference Chirehdast teaches “Col 6 lines 44-54 wherein the prior art teaches lender identify customer via customer identification including phone number and other identifying numbers”
In the remarks applicant recites the limitations, arguing that the prior art references fail to teach “receiving, at the web-based credit application system, a user's ID”, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The prior art Chirehdast teaches “Col 6 lines 44-54 wherein the prior art teaches lender identify customer via customer identification and other identifying numbers”
In the remarks applicant recites the limitations, arguing that the prior art references fail to teach “utilizing the computer system ID of said authenticated computing system, the mobile phone ID of said authenticated mobile device, and the user ID, to obtain a user specific information useable for populating a credit application.", the examiner respectfully disagrees. The prior at Chirehdast teaches Col 45 “The ATM also has to verify and validate the account information. This step may take different forms in different embodiments….The ATM also has to verify and validate the account information. This step may take different forms in different embodiments.”
In the remarks applicant argues that the validation of the two devices of Koch is a validation of information and not the authentication of the devices as claimed and does not therefore, provide authentication of the devices to the web-based credit application system. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. The term “authenticated” by definition is to prove something to be true or valid and in computing to have ones identity verified. The term “verified” is defined as to make sure something is true or accurate. Applicant is arguing analogous terms and is not persuasive. The rejection is maintained.
In the remarks applicant argues that as Koch teaches that the two devices allow user information to be passed between users two computing devices (one that stores the information and the other that is accessing a webpage with fillable data) would have no reason to post authenticating elements to obtain user specific information useable for populating a credit application, as Koch information is already stored in one of the devices and provided to the website upon the validation. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. The claim limitations recite “utilizing the computer system [first] device ID of said authenticated computing system, the mobile phone device ID of said authenticated mobile device and the user ID, to obtain a user specific information useable for populating a credit application” The prior art Chirehdast teaches: Col 6 lines 22-28, the prior art teaches if a customer is interested in an application then it sees if has information on customer and teaches Col 6 lines 55-Col 7 lines 1-6, mobile app to collect information including identity of the customer and customer co-applicants transmitted to internal databases where relevant information for completing application is retrieved from the database if missing any fields with application the mobile app will prompt customer to complete. In col 11 lines 38-61 the prior art teaches mobile app accessing lender internal database to retrieve relevant for the application information -Col 45 lines customer enters device ID to mitigate fraud and customer identifying data. Accordingly the prior art teaches the limitation “utilizing the computer system [first] device ID of said authenticated computing system, the mobile phone device ID of said authenticated mobile device and the user ID, to obtain a user specific information useable for populating a credit application”. The limitations further recite “accessing, via said user’s computing system, said prepopulated credit application” and teaches Col 6 lines 55-Col 7 lines 1-6, mobile app to collect information including identity of the customer and customer co-applicants transmitted to internal databases where relevant information for completing application is retrieved from the database if missing any fields with application the mobile app will prompt customer to complete. In col 11 lines 38-61 the prior art teaches mobile app accessing lender internal database to retrieve relevant for the application information which teaches accessing pre-populated credit applications.
Claim Interpretation
In light of the specification, 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 language of the limitation “
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) providing phone number 3) receiving a code from the application 4) providing the code 5) stopping application process until code provided 6) receiving computer system ID, 7) receiving mobile phone ID 8) receiving user’s ID, 9) utilizing ID’s to obtain user specific (10) pre-populating an e-commerce application with user data (11 accessing pre-populated application, (12) receiving verification of pre-populated 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 user’s computing system, web-based credit application system.
The additional element user’s computing system applied to perform the operation “providing …a phone number”, “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 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 operations “accessing …web-based credit application system” and “accessing …prepopulated credit application” which is merely used to perform a credit application.
The claimed additional element “web-based credit application system” applied for “stopping …progress until …verification code is received…authenticates the user’s mobile device and user’s computing system”, “prepopulating …credit application,” which is merely used to perform a credit application.
With respect to the limitation “utilizing the computer system ID of said authenticated computing system, the mobile phone ID of said authenticated mobile device, and the user ID, to obtain a user specific information useable for populating a credit application”, the limitations is not tied to any particular technology to perform the operation and focuses on using identifying data to obtain (insignificant activity) for use 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 1 – 10 are directed toward collecting identifying data that can be used to obtain user specific data for a credit application and applying security codes to access the credit application – risk mitigation and a business practice. The combination of limitations 1-10 and 10-12 is directed toward accessing the populated/filled out credit application and receiving verification from the user of the user populated data – directed toward a credit application process and risk mitigation. Accordingly the combination of parts is directed toward the business practice of accessing a credit application, gathering data, completing, submitting the application for a new account, providing and validating the application data that has been populated.
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 non-phone computing 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 non-phone computing 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
674
1054
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
640
1060
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
666
994
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 data utilized. Claim 3 is directed toward searching a database. 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” 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
674
1054
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
640
1060
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
666
994
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 data utilized. Claim 10 is directed toward searching a database. Claim 11 is directed toward utilizing factors such as user specific information to populate the credit application- a business practice. Claim 12 is directed toward accessing an application, utilizing application to place monetary hold, auto filling data which is a business process. Claim 13 is directed toward obtaining authorization, receiving data and verifying information is directed toward a business practice. Claim 14 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 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
674
1054
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
640
1060
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
666
994
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 1-4 and 6-7, Claims 8-14; Claims 15-20 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. 2018/0053252 A1 by Koltnow et al. (Koltnow), 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’ computing system, a web-based credit application system ((Chirehdast in at least FIG. 2A, FIG. 3A wherein the prior art illustrates user invoking lending product app, FIG. 11; Col 5 lines 3-Col 6 lines 1-5, Col 10 lines 30-Col 11 lines 1-10, Col 11 lines 32-61);
providing, via the user’s computing system, a phone number for a user’s mobile device to said web-based credit application system,((Chirehdast) in at least FIG. 5; Col 5 lines 12-Col 6 lines 1-5, Col 6 lines 44-54, Col 13 lines 43-58, Col 15 lines 60-Col 16 lines 1-5); wherein said user’s computing system is a different device than said users’ mobile device ,((Chirehdast) in at least FIG. 5; Col 5 lines 12-Col 6 lines 1-5, Col 6 lines 44-54, Col 13 lines 43-58, Col 15 lines 45-Col 16 lines 1-5); wherein said user’s computing system is a different device than said users’ mobile device ((Chirehdast) in at least FIG. 11-12; Col 5 lines 57-61, Col 6 lines 10-23, Col 7 lines 42-46, col 10 lines 6-16, Col 12 lines 29-39. Col 33 lines 10-14 wherein the prior art teaches that the data provided can be provided by user computer, pda or other computer devices, Col 53 lines 28-39);
receiving, on the user’s mobile device, a secure verification code from web-based credit application system ((Chirehdast) in at least Col 8 lines 48-54 wherein the prior art teaches security verifications (tel. number, hardware/software ID or numbers/codes; authentication methods PKI, digital signatures, other biometrics), Col 13 lines 47-58 wherein the prior art teaches establishing security measures including PINs, phone number, identification serial number, Sim card number, transmitted to host receivables/servicing system or any other system, Col 15 lines 19-40 wherein the prior art teaches financial application loaded with security module and user mobile device display bar code, the application reads/ocrs codes, lines 60-Col 16 lines 1-5, Col 36 lines 1- 5, Col 37 lines 35-41, Col 45 lines 48-63), ;
providing, via the users’ computer system, the secure verification code to said web-based credit application system ((Chirehdast) in at least FIG. 15; Col 13 lines 47-58, Col 15 lines 19-40 wherein the prior art teaches financial application loaded with security module and user mobile device display bar code, the application reads/ocrs codes, Col 37 lines 35-53);
stopping any further progress until …[authentication process is met before submission of application allowed] ((Chirehdast) in at least FIG. 15; Col 15 lines 12-24 wherein the prior art teaches financial institution loaded application on phone and security module verifies user, Col 45 lines 48-63 wherein the prior art reaches customer enter PIN in mobile device app, the App provides security identifying information to ATM (financial institution system) and once validation completed process for transaction completed;
receiving, at the web-based credit application system, a computer system (ID) associated with the user’s authenticated computing system ((Chirehdast) in at least FIG. 14, Col 6 lines 31-54, Col 9 lines 27-42, Col 13 lines 43-57);
receiving, at the web-based credit application system, a mobile phone ID associated with the user’s authenticated mobile device ((Chirehdast) in at least FIG. 5 wherein the prior art teaches receiving contract information and user identifiers; FIG. 8-10, FIG. 41 where the prior art illustrates receiving user identifier; Col 6 lines 44-54 wherein the prior art teaches lender identify customer via customer identification including phone number and other identifying numbers, Col 9 lines 28-41, Col 13 lines 37-58, Col 15 lines 19-23, Col 15 lines 60-Col 16 lines 1-5);
receiving, at the web-based credit application system, a user’s ID ((Chirehdast) in at least FIG. 5 wherein the prior art teaches receiving contract information and user identifiers; FIG. 8-10, FIG. 41 where the prior art illustrates receiving user identifier; Col 6 lines 44-54 wherein the prior art teaches lender identify customer via customer identification and other identifying numbers, Col 9 lines 28-41, Col 13 lines 43-58, Col 15 lines 60-Col 16 lines 1-5);
utilizing the computer system [first] device ID of said authenticated computing system, the mobile phone device ID of said authenticated mobile device and the user ID, to obtain a user specific information useable for populating a credit application ((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 wherein the prior art teaches the lending product application retrieves all customer relevant information from internal systems databases; Col 15 lines 23-40, Col 45 lines 50-58); and…
accessing, via said user’s computing system, said prepopulated credit application (Chirehdast) in at least Fita. 2A-B, FIG. SA: Abstract; Col 6 lines 55-Col 7 lines 1-13; Col 11 lines 35-61 wherein the prior art teaches the lending product application retrieves all customer relevant information from internal systems databases); and
receiving, at the web-based credit application system, a verification of said pre-populated user specific information from said user ((Chirehdast) in at least Fig. 4b wherein the prior art teaches customer chooses PIN; Col 13 lines 32-58 that the on the mobile device via the lender’s app the first time the customer and lender establishes security measure to prevent fraud including PINs, passwords, security questions/answers as well as verification measures including identifying number of the mobile phone for future verification Col 8 lines 59-Col 9 lines 1-3; “should the user decide to use the card on the mobile device the customer invokes the app and provides the security information established by the lender and customer. The lender’s app is connected to the credit provider system. Col 15 lines 25-40 teaches the user invoking bank app with necessary information to prevent fraud the application matches the phone number and hardware ID against record on account. FIG. 25; Col 53 lines 2-28 the consumer device online/BricknMotar connecting to card service/bank (i.e. credit account provider) to authenticate through card information/biometrics, plus bank rules to charge card for transaction. This includes customer’s data approved. See also FIG. 15.).
Chirehdast does not explicitly teach:
providing, via the user’s computing system, a phone number for a user’s mobile device to said web-based credit application system; wherein said user’s computing system is a different device than said users’ mobile device;
receiving, on the user’s mobile device, a secure verification code from said web-based credit application system
stopping any further progress until said secure verification code is received at said web-based credit application system, wherein said receiving of said secure verification code at said web-based credit application system authenticates said user's mobile device and said user's computing system
utilizing the computer system ID of said authenticated computing system, … to obtain user specific information usable for populating the credit application;
pre-populating, at the web-based credit application system, the credit application with user specific information;
Knoltnow teaches:
accessing, via a user’s computing system, a web-based credit application system ((Koltnow) in at least FIG. 3B; para 0016 wherein the prior art teaches the actions described can be performed by electronic computing device/system, such as desktop computer, notebook computer, tablet, among others, para 0027, para 0063-0064, para 0102);
providing, via the user’s computing system, a phone number for a user’s mobile device to said web-based credit application system; wherein said user’s computing system is a different device than said users’ mobile device ((Koltnow) in at least para 0016, para 0030-0031);
receiving, on the user’s mobile device, a secure verification code from said web-based credit application system ((Koltnow) in at least para 0028-0032 wherein the prior art teaches the user device receiving barcode/QR code or a number to text, para 0059, para 0064-0065, para 0083, para 0087); …
receiving, at the web-based credit application system, a computer system identifier (ID) associated with the user’s authenticated computing system ((Koltnow) in at least FIG. 2B; abstract wherein the prior art teaches the system includes device identifier associated with user’s mobile device (please note device identifier is associated with the mobile device and does not explicitly state that the device identifier is the identifier of the mobile device) and user identifier for user of mobile device to search for user specific information; para 0016, para 0030-0031 wherein the prior art teaches receiving mobile device ID; para 0102);
receiving, at the web-based credit application system, a mobile device ID associated with the user’s authenticated mobile device ((Koltnow) in at, para 0030-0035, para 0060, para 0063, para 0083);
receiving at the web-based credit application system, a user’s ID ((Koltnow) in at least para 0030-0035, para 0062-0064);…
utilizing the computer system ID of said authenticated computing system, the mobile device ID of said authenticated mobile device, the user ID, to obtain a user specific information useable for populating a credit application; ((Koltnow) in at least FIG. 2A; Abstract wherein the prior art teaches the system includes device identifier associated with user’s mobile device (please note device identifier is associated with the mobile device and does not explicitly state that the device identifier is the identifier of the mobile device) and user identifier for user of mobile device to search for user specific information, para 0031, para 0046 wherein the prior art teaches information includes email of application, para 0047-0053, para 0062, para 0063-0064 wherein the prior art teaches receiving URL leading to company page asking for user ID, para 0066, para 0068, para 0070); and
prepopulating at the web-based credit application system, the web-based credit application with said user specific information ((Koltnow) in at least Abstract; para 0053-0054, para 0063-0064).
accessing, via said user’s computing system, said prepopulated credit application ((Koltnow) in at least para 0016, para 0068, para 0070); and
receiving, at the web-based credit application system, a verification of said pre-populated user specific information from said user ((Koltnow) in at least para 0041-0042, para 0044-0045, para 0069, para 0080-0081)
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 Knoltnow 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 Knoltnow, 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 Knoltnow teach applying computer technologies to perform the operations of the application process. Knoltnow 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. 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 Knoltnow since Knoltnow 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 Knoltnow are directed toward using web-based application for loan application processes. Knoltnow teaches the motivation of the lender URL (i.e. device ID) in order to link to the company page for loan applications. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of effective filing the invention was made to modify the device ID’s utilized for identification in a loan application process to include the lender URL page as taught by Knoltnow since Knoltnow teaches the motivation of the lender URL (i.e. device ID) in order to link to the company page for loan applications.
Both Chirehdast and Knoltnow are directed toward using web-based application for loan application processes. Although Chirehdast does not explicitly teach population of data, the prior art teaches that user data is retrieved and the user provides missing data which suggests that the data is populated as it is not supplied by the borrower. Therefore, Chirehdast provides some teaching that would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed invention. The prior art Knoltnow teaches the motivation of populating data in an application in order to reduce abandonment rate which will improve the acceptance process as the process will be shortened due to the pre-filling of the customer's information into the acceptance forms. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of effective filing the invention was made to modify the details of retrieving all available data of the loan applicant of Chirehdast to include data population as taught by Knoltnow since Knoltnow teaches the motivation of populating data in an application in order to reduce abandonment rate which will improve the acceptance process as the process will be shortened due to the pre-filling of the customer's information into the acceptance forms. Both Chirehdast and Knoltnow teach providing discounts related to use of credit transactions. Knoltnow teaches the motivation of providing offer codes in order to provide a means to utilize discounts. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of effective filing the invention was made to modify discounts provided of Chirehdast to include providing a code at transactions as taught by Knoltnow since Knoltnow teaches the motivation of providing offer codes in order to provide a means to utilize discounts.
Koch teaches:
providing, via the user’s computing system, a phone number for a user’s mobile phone computing device to said web-based credit application system, wherein said user’s computer system is a different device than said user’s 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)
receiving, on the user’s mobile device, a secure verification code from web-based credit application system ((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);
providing, via the users’ computer system, the secure verification code to said web-based credit application system ((Koch) in at least para 0033, wherein the prior art teaches auto form filling module enables user to input unique code via user interface and communicates unique code to server via network)
stopping any further progress until said secure verification code is received at said web-based credit application system, wherein said receiving of said secure verification code at said web-based credit application system authenticates said user's mobile device and said user's computing system ((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 );
receiving, at the web-based credit application system [IP address], a computer system identifier (ID) associated with the user's authenticated computing system ((Koch) in at least para 0036, para 0056-0057);
receiving, at the web-based credit application system, a mobile phone ID associated with the user's authenticated mobile device ((Koch) in t least para 0056-0057) ;
receiving, at the web-based credit application system, a user's ID ((Koch) in at least para 0038, para 0056-0057, para 0062);
utilizing the computer system ID of said authenticated computing system, the mobile phone ID of said authenticated mobile device, and the user ID, to obtain a user specific information useable for populating a credit application ((Koch) in at least para 0036, para 0038, para 0056-0057);
pre-populating, at the web-based credit application system, the credit application with user specific information ((Koch) in at least para 0034-0036, para 0049-0051);
prepopulating, at the web-based credit application system, the credit application with said user specific information; user specific information from said user ((Koch) in at least para 0049-0051)
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, Koltnow and Koch discloses the limitations of independent claim 1. Chirehdast further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 2
(Previously Presented) The method of Claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein said obtaining the user specific information comprises:
utilizing the …the mobile phone the user ID, and said at least said portion of said information about said user from said e-commerce application to perform a proprietary database search for the 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)
Chirehdast does not explicitly teach:
… computer system ID,,…
Koltnow teaches:
utilizing the computer system ID, the mobile phone ID, the user ID, and said at least said portion of said information about said user from said e-commerce application to perform a proprietary database search for the user specific information. ((Koltnow) in at least FIG. 2A; Abstract wherein the prior art teaches the system includes device identifier associated with user’s mobile device (please note device identifier is associated with the mobile device and does not explicitly state that the device identifier is the identifier of the mobile device) and user identifier for user of mobile device to search for user specific information, para 0031, para 0046-0053, para 0062-0064, para 0066, para 0068, para 0070)
Both Chirehdast and Knoltnow are directed toward using web-based application for loan application processes. Knoltnow teaches the motivation of the lender URL (i.e. device ID) in order to link to the company page for loan applications. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of effective filing the invention was made to modify the device ID’s utilized for identification in a loan application process to include the lender URL page as taught by Knoltnow since Knoltnow teaches the motivation of the lender URL (i.e. device ID) in order to link to the company page for loan applications.
In reference to Claim 3:
The combination of Chirehdast, Koltnow and Koch discloses the limitations of dependent claim 2. Chirehdast further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 3
(Original) The method of Claim 2 (see rejection of claim 2 above),
wherein if no user specific information is found during said proprietary database search, said obtaining the user specific information ((Chirehdast) in at least Col 11 lines 37-61) further comprises:
Chirehdast does not explicitly teach:
performing a secondary source database search for the user specific information
Koltnow teaches:
performing a secondary source database search for the user specific information ((Koltnow) in at least Abstract; para 0036-0037, para 0039).
Both Chirehdast and Koltnow teach retrieving user information from databases for loan applications. Koltnow teaches the motivation of accessing different location for information as user data can be stored in different database. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of effective filing the invention was made to modify the retrieving of all available customer data from databases of Chirehdast to include searching a plurality of databases as taught by Koltnow since Koltnow teaches the motivation of accessing different location for information as user data can be stored in different database.
In reference to Claim 4:
The combination of Chirehdast, Koltnow 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 populate the 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 populate the 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 6:
The combination of Chirehdast, Koltnow and Koch discloses the limitations of independent claim 1. Chirehdast further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 6.
(Previously Presented) The method of Claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), further comprising:
obtaining authorization for the web-based credit application system to access location information about the user’s mobile device ((Chirehdast) in at least Col 10 lines 6-18, Col 29 lines 53-55, Col 45 lines 45-60);
receiving location information for the user’s mobile device ((Chirehdast) in at least Col 48 lines 24-29)); and
utilizing the location information to verify any location information provided to the web-based credit application system((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, Koltnow and Koch discloses the limitations of dependent claim 6. Chirehdast further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 7.
(Original) The method of Claim 6 (see rejection of claim 6 above), further comprising:
performing a fraud risk assessment based on a result of the verifying.((Chirehdast) in at least Col 11 lines 38-61, Col 37 lines 7-20)
In reference to Claim 8:
The combination of Chirehdast, Koltnow 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, Koltnow 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, Koltnow 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 11:
The combination of Chirehdast, Koltnow 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 12:
The combination of Chirehdast, Koltnow 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 the web-based credit application system to access location information about the user’s mobile device. ((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, Koltnow 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:
receiving location information for the user’s mobile device ((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 the location information to verify any location information provided to the web-based credit application system. ((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, Koltnow 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 the 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, Koltnow 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, Koltnow 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, Koltnow 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 18:
The combination of Chirehdast, Koltnow and Koch discloses the limitations of independent claim 15. Chirehdast further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 18.
(Previously Presented) 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 populate the 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 populate the 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 19:
The combination of Chirehdast, Koltnow 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 the web-based credit application system to access location information about the user’s mobile device. ((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 20:
The combination of Chirehdast, Koltnow and Koch discloses the limitations of dependent claim 19. Chirehdast further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 20
(Previously Presented) The system of Claim 19 (see rejection of claim 19 above), further comprising:
receive location information for the user’s mobile device((Chirehdast) in at least Col 10 lines 6-18, Col 29 lines 53-55, Col 45 lines 45-60, Col 48 lines 24-29
Chirehdast does not explicitly teach:
one or more devices to:
utilize the location information to verify any location information provided to the web-based credit application system; and
perform a fraud risk assessment based on a result of the verifying.
Koltnow teaches:
one or more devices ((Koltnow) in at least FIG. 1A-B, FIG. 5; para 0023, para 0052, para 0095)to:
receive location information for the user’s mobile device ((Koltnow) in at least para 0023, para 0088-0090);
utilize the location information to verify any location information provided to the web-based credit application system ((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 the 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Pub No. 2015/0227731 A1 by Grigg et al; US Pub No. 2020/0167861 A1 by Ramaswamy et al -para 0053
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
/CHRISTINE M Tran/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3695