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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communications filed on 10/24/2025.
Claims 1, 2, and 5 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 34-39 have been added.
Claims 28-33 have been canceled.
Claims 1-9 and 34-39 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made Non-FINAL.
Examiner Request
The Applicant is requested to indicate where in the specification there is support for future claim amendments to avoid U.S.C 112(a) issues that can arise. The Examiner thanks the Applicant in advance.
Examiner Notes
Regarding Claims 5 and 34, Applicant is advised that should Claim 5 be found allowable, Claim 34 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Regarding Claims 4 and 35, Applicant is advised that should Claim 4 be found allowable, Claim 35 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Regarding Claims 7 and 36, Applicant is advised that should Claim 7 be found allowable, Claim 36 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Regarding Claims 6 and 37, Applicant is advised that should Claim 6 be found allowable, Claim 37 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Regarding Claims 8 and 38, Applicant is advised that should Claim 8 be found allowable, Claim 38 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Regarding Claims 9 and 39, Applicant is advised that should Claim 9 be found allowable, Claim 39 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/24/2025 has been entered.
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 1-9 and 34-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of processing a debtor’s loan applications and providing interest rates for the loans using the debtor’s bank account information, psychometric data, and financial data, without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed to a system, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Claim 1 is directed to a computer system for financial technical services, the computer system comprising: a computer server, one or more debtor client computers coupled in digital communication with the computer server over a computer network, wherein each debtor client computer is configured to interact with a debtor user in ways a human auditor cannot interact with a debtor user, wherein each debtor client computer is configured to digitally display a customized loan application to enable a debtor user to remotely enter account information including psychometric data, wherein a human auditor cannot digitally display the customized loan application remotely over the computer network, digitally receive the account information including the psychometric data, digitally receive permission to have digital access to at least a bank account, a checking account, a credit card account, or a credit report from a credit bureau, wherein the permission must be received digitally to enable the computer server to have digital access to at least a checking account to extract transaction data digitally, and digitally communicate the account information and the digital permission to the computer server; and a plurality of lender client computers coupled in digital communication with the computer server, the plurality of lender client computers to provide interest rates digitally for loan principal amounts and fund consolidating loans originated by the computer server, wherein at least one lender client computer is configured to perform operations comprising, receiving a transactional score that is based on the transaction data, and displaying the transactional score next to a FICO (Fair Isaac Corporation) score for the debtor user such that the transactional score and the FICO score can be visually compared immediately. These limitations describe the abstract idea of processing a debtor’s loan applications and providing interest rates for the loans using the debtor’s bank account information, psychometric data, and financial data (with the exception of the italicized and bolded terms above), which is mitigating the risk of improperly permitting access to a user’s checking account to extract transaction data; therefore, corresponding to a fundamental economic principle or practice (including mitigating risk). Hence, a fundamental economic principle or practice (mitigating risk) is a Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The abstract idea is also the processing of loan applications and determining interest rates for the loans based on a debtor’s transactional and psychometric account data, which is a commercial interaction. Therefore, a commercial interaction is also a Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The computer device limitations, e.g., a computer system, computer server, one or more debtor client computers, computer network, at least one lender client computer, and plurality of lender client computers do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. Thus, claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of a computer system, computer server, one or more debtor client computers, computer network, at least one lender client computer, and plurality of lender client computers, are no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements listed above are all recited at a high level of generality and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computing arrangement. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than to implement the claimed invention (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The computer network limitations are a field of use limitations (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Therefore, the recitations of additional elements do not meaningfully apply the abstract idea and hence do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, claim 1 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO).
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of a computer system, computer server, one or more debtor client computers, computer network, at least one lender client computer, and plurality of lender client computers are recited at a high level of generality in that it results in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The computer network limitations are a field of use limitations (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The additional elements when considered separately and as an ordered combination do not amount to add significantly more as these limitations provide nothing more than to simply apply the exception in a generic computer environment (Step 2B: NO). Thus, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-9 and 34-39 are directed to a system, which perform steps that describe the abstract idea of processing a debtor’s loan applications and providing interest rates for the loans using the debtor’s bank account information, psychometric data, and financial data. Furthermore, dependent claims 2-3, 5, 7, 34, and 36 are directed to a system, which perform the steps: “further comprising: at least one managing client computer coupled in communication with the computer server, the at least one managing client computer can oversee the financial technical services and provide agent review of the account information and customized loan application digitally received from each debtor client computer; wherein at least one of the one or more debtor client computers is a smart phone in wireless communication over a wide area network with the computer server, wherein the smart phone increases the mobility options of the at least one of the one or more debtor client computers to remotely interact with the computer server; further comprising: a loan origination device coupled to the computer server, wherein the loan origination device is configured to parse transaction data extracted via the digital access and to generate parsed financial transaction data, analyze the parsed financial transactions data to calculate a local probability of default by the debtor user, fuse the local probability of default with a credit bureau probability of default to calculate a fused transactional score, match a lender client digitally with a debtor user, and originate a consolidating loan digitally when the fused transactional score of the debtor user is within one or more score ranges wherein the fused transactional score is representative of the ability of the debtor user to pay interest and principal on the consolidating loan and the ability of the computer server to approve more debtor users for receiving consolidating loans, the computer system, and wherein the fused transactional score is a fused probability of default between zero and one; and at least one of the debtor client computers is a smart cellular telephone, wherein the smart cellular telephone increases the mobility options to remotely interact with the computer server.” These series of steps describe the abstract idea of processing a debtor’s loan applications and providing interest rates for the loans using the debtor’s bank account information, psychometric data, and financial data (with the exception of the italicized and bolded terms above), which is mitigating the risk of improperly permitting access to a user’s checking account to extract transaction data; therefore, corresponding to a fundamental economic principle or practice (including mitigating risk). Hence, a fundamental economic principle or practice (mitigating risk) is a Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The abstract idea is also the processing of loan applications and determining interest rates for the loans based on a debtor’s transactional and psychometric account data, which is a commercial interaction. Therefore, a commercial interaction is also a Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Thus, claims 2-9 and 34-39 are directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements of a computer system, computer server, one or more debtor client computers, computer network, at least one lender client computer, plurality of lender client computers, at least one managing client computer, smart phone, wide area network, loan origination device, and smart cellular telephone, are no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than to implement the claimed invention (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The computer network limitations are a field of use limitations (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Therefore, the recitations of additional elements do not meaningfully apply the abstract idea and hence do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Furthermore, the additional elements, a computer system, computer server, one or more debtor client computers, computer network, at least one lender client computer, plurality of lender client computers, at least one managing client computer, smart phone, wide area network, loan origination device, and smart cellular telephone, do not amount to add significantly more as these limitations provide nothing more than to simply apply the exception in a generic computer environment.
Dependent claims 2-9 and 34-39 have further defined the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claim, claim 1; and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity: fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk) and/or commercial or legal interactions, and hence are abstract in nature for the reason presented above. The dependent claims 2-9 and 34-39 do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, claims 2-9 and 34-39 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Thus, claims 1-9 and 34-39 are not patent-eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed on 10/24/2025, have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive due to the following reasons:
With respect to the rejection of claims 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant arguments are moot in view of the grounds of rejections presented above in this office action. The arguments are addressed to the extent they apply to the amended claims.
Applicant argues that “Claim 1 satisfies Step 2A, Prong Two of the 2019 PEG…… Applicant's independent Claim 1 is patent eligible for similar reasons Example Number 48, Claim 3 of the SMEE is patent eligible. Like Example 48, Claim 3, Applicant's independent Claim 1 includes additional limitations that incorporate an (presumed) abstract idea into a practical application…… Although the Final Office Action presumes the initial limitations of Applicant's independent Claim 1 to be an abstract idea, the additional limitations incorporate the presumed abstract idea into a practical application. Specifically, the limitations of digitally displaying a customized loan application, digital receiving the account information, digitally receiving permission, digitally communicating the account information, receiving a transactional score, and displaying the transactional score next to the FICO score reflect the technical improvement discussed in the disclosure. Accordingly, the claim is directed to an improvement to existing financial technical services technology, and the claim integrates the presumed abstract idea into a practical application of displaying a transactional score next to a FICO score such that the transactional score and the FICO score can be visually compared immediately. An example of such display is shown in Applicant's Figure 25C, which is reproduced above for convenience. Applicant, once again, notes similarities to Examples 47-49 of the SMEE. Thus, Applicant's independent Claim 1 integrates the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two = YES), such that Applicant's independent Claim 1 is not directed to the judicial exception (i.e., not an abstract idea).”
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Under Step 2A: Prong II, Examiner respectfully notes that there is no improved technology in simply displaying, entering, receiving, extracting, enabling, accessing, communicating, outputting, and comparing data (i.e., loan application data, account information, credit data, loan data, transactional data, transaction score data, and etc.). Unlike Examples 47-49 of the USPTO's Subject Matter Eligibility Examples, which Applicant argued are similar to the amended claim 1, the disclosed invention simply cannot be equated to improvement to technological practices or computers. There is no technical improvement at all. Instead, Applicant recites in Claim 1: “a computer system for financial technical services, the computer system comprising: a computer server, one or more debtor client computers coupled in digital communication with the computer server over a computer network, wherein each debtor client computer is configured to interact with a debtor user in ways a human auditor cannot interact with a debtor user, wherein each debtor client computer is configured to digitally display a customized loan application to enable a debtor user to remotely enter account information including psychometric data, wherein a human auditor cannot digitally display the customized loan application remotely over the computer network, digitally receive the account information including the psychometric data, digitally receive permission to have digital access to at least a bank account, a checking account, a credit card account, or a credit report from a credit bureau, wherein the permission must be received digitally to enable the computer server to have digital access to at least a checking account to extract transaction data digitally, and digitally communicate the account information and the digital permission to the computer server; and a plurality of lender client computers coupled in digital communication with the computer server, the plurality of lender client computers to provide interest rates digitally for loan principal amounts and fund consolidating loans originated by the computer server, wherein at least one lender client computer is configured to perform operations comprising, receiving a transactional score that is based on the transaction data, and displaying the transactional score next to a FICO (Fair Isaac Corporation) score for the debtor user such that the transactional score and the FICO score can be visually compared immediately.” The recited features in the limitations do not result in computer functionality or technical improvement. Examiner respectfully notes that Applicant is simply using a computer to input, process, and output data. Specifically, unlike Example 48 ( eligible claim 3) of the USPTO's Subject Matter Eligibility Examples, the recited features in the limitations of Claim 1, as amended, do not disclose a technical solution to technical problem, but simply a business solution. Specifically, the recited steps are merely managing/processing data (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)) and does not result in computer functionality or technical improvement. Thus, Applicant has simply provided a business method practice of financial and transactional data (i.e., loan application data, account information, credit data, loan data, transactional data, transaction score data, and etc.), and no technical solution or improvement has been disclosed.
Furthermore, unlike Example 48 ( eligible claim 3) of the USPTO's Subject Matter Eligibility Examples, there is no technology/technical improvement as a result of implementing the abstract idea. The recited limitations in the pending claims simply amount to the abstract idea of processing a debtor’s loan applications and providing interest rates for the loans using the debtor’s bank account information, psychometric data, and financial data. There is no computer functionality improvement or technology improvement. The claim does not provide a technical solution to a technical problem. If there is an improvement, it is to the abstract idea and not to technology. Additionally, Examiner notes that it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the judicial exception itself (e.g., recited fundamental economic principle or practice and/or commercial interaction and/or mental processes) is not an improvement in technology (See, MPEP 2106.05(a)(II)). Thus, the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application; and these arguments are not persuasive. Moreover, the claims recite steps at a high level of generality. In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and outputting, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and output. See MPEP 2106.05. The claim simply makes use of a computer as a tool to apply the abstract idea without transforming the abstract idea into a patent eligible subject matter. Thus, these arguments are not persuasive.
Moreover, Examiner respectfully notes that the claimed invention is simply directed to presenting/displaying information on a user interface. Presenting/displaying information is abstract in nature and presenting new information does not result in technical improvements to the interface. Thus, presenting new information on a display does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The automatically (digital) features simply amounts to mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase, Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Thus, the automation feature is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality or technology/technical improvements (see MPEP 2106.05(a)(1)). The claim simply makes use of a computer as a tool to apply the abstract idea without transforming the abstract idea into a patent eligible subject matter. Thus, these arguments are not persuasive.
Additionally, these steps are recited as being performed by a computer system, computer server, one or more debtor client computers, computer network, at least one lender client computer, and plurality of lender client computers (Claim 1), which are recited at a high level of generality, and are used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of receiving, processing, and outputting data. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims recite: a computer system, computer server, one or more debtor client computers, computer network, at least one lender client computer, and plurality of lender client computers, (Claim 1), which are simply used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong 1, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Specifically, the recitation of “a computer system, computer server, one or more debtor client computers, computer network, at least one lender client computer, and plurality of lender client computers,” in the limitations merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. The claims merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment; and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. Hence, Claim 1 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, these arguments are not persuasive.
Hence, Examiner respectfully declines Applicant’s request to withdraw the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 1-9 and 34-39.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is the following:
Haggerty (U.S. Patent Pub. No. US 2013/0226778-A1) “Improved systems and methods are provided for identifying financial relationships. In particular, financial relationships may be identified by associating tradelines with one or more people who sign or co-sign on the tradeline. In various embodiments a method is provided comprising, receiving, at a computer-based system for credit data analysis comprising a processor and a tangible, non-transitory memory, credit reporting data relating to a tradeline, parsing, by the computer-based system, the credit reporting data to yield primary debtor data and secondary debtor data and linking, by the computer-based system, the tradeline with the primary debtor data and the secondary debtor data.”
Gardiner (U.S. Patent Pub. No. US 2014/0067650-A1) “Systems and methods for lending based on automatic retrieval from third-party databases of data for loan qualification scoring factors in the nature of: financial management, leadership, social networking, advocacy, and accountability, and providing investors a borrower credit profile and/or loan qualification score derived at least in part from the scoring factors. A method of dynamic loan pricing, including the steps of: periodically updating an existing borrower's credit profile, and changing the terms of an existing borrower's loan, or making a new loan offering, based on an updating. A method of lending based on automated use of the following loan qualification scoring factors: financial management, leadership, social networking, advocacy, and accountability. Methods and systems for creating fractional units of a loan and offering the units to lenders to create a loan that is the aggregate of multiple subloans (loan subunits) from different lenders.”
Chrapko (U.S. Patent Pub. No. US 2017/0206269-A1) “Systems and methods for conducting more reliable financial transactions, credit decisions, and security assessments are provided. A user may assign user connectivity values to other members of the community, or connectivity values may be automatically harvested or assigned from third parties or based on the frequency of interactions between members of the community. Connectivity values may represent alignment, reputation within the network community, or the degree of trust. Information about a financial transaction initiated by a first member of the community, a credit decision, and/or a security assessment may be automatically published to other qualifying members of the community based on connectivity values. The other qualifying members may then be given the opportunity to participate in the same financial transaction or access the same financial application in order to initiate their own financial transaction, or to take action based on information about the financial transaction, credit decision, and/or security assessment.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED H MUSTAFA whose telephone number is (571)270-7978. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 - 5:00.
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, Michael W Anderson can be reached on 571-270-0508. 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.
/MOHAMMED H MUSTAFA/Examiner, Art Unit 3693
/Mike Anderson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3693