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
Claims 9 and 18 are canceled.
Claims 1-8, 10-17 and 19-20 are currently pending and rejected.
Claim Rejection – 35 U.S.C. 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 1-8, 10-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The rationale for this finding is explained below. In the instant case, the claims are directed towards applying selected mortgage adjustment rules to create specific mortgage products. The concept is clearly related to fundamental economic practice (i.e. creating mortgage products, which are intangible contract between lender and borrower), thus the present claims fall within the Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity grouping. The claims do not include limitations that are “significantly more” than the abstract idea because the claims do not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Note that the limitations, in the instant claims, are done by the generically recited computer device. The limitations are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry. Therefore, claims 1-8, 10-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1: The claims 1-8, 10-17 and 19-20 are directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition matter.
In Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Intern., 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014), the Supreme Court applied a two-step test for determining whether a claim recites patentable subject matter. First, we determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one or more patent-ineligible concepts, i.e., laws of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract ideas. Id. at 2355 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1296–96 (2012)). If so, we then consider whether the elements of each claim, both individually and as an ordered combination, transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the ineligible concept itself. Claims 1-8 and 19 are directed to a method. Claims 10-17 and 20 are directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium.
Step 2A: The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Prong One
The present claims are directed towards applying selected mortgage adjustment rules to create specific mortgage products. Claim 1, for example, recites establishing a plurality of rules to apply to unique mortgage products, establishing a first unique mortgage product, establishing a second unique mortgage product, configuring a rule group including a combination of rules selected from the plurality of rule, applying the combination of rules in the rule group to the first and the second unique mortgage product, and generating, in response to the instruction, a first specific mortgage product and a second specific mortgage product. Examiner notes, applying rules means calculating mortgage product pricing under selected conditions, and mortgage products are financial products. The concept is clearly related to fundamental economic practice (i.e. creating mortgage products, which are intangible abstract concept), thus the present claims fall within the Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity grouping. The performance of the claim limitations using generic computer components (i.e. software application and user interface) does not preclude the claim limitation from being in the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. It merely amounts to implementing an abstract concept with software on a compute environment. Accordingly, this claim recites an abstract idea.
Prong Two
The present claims 1-8 and 19 recite a software application and a rule group configuration user interface as additional elements. Claims 10-17 and 20 recite a computer readable medium and a processor and a rule group computer configuration user interface as additional elements. The additional elements are claimed to perform basic computer functions, such as establishing rules (i.e., receiving, processing, and storing rule data), establishing mortgage products (i.e., receiving, processing, and storing mortgage product data), configuring a rule group including a combination of rules (i.e., providing a GUI with built-in elements to allow users to select rules from a pool), applying rules to the mortgage products to generate specific mortgage products (i.e., performing calculations to establish mortgage product pricing under selected rules/conditions).
The rule group configuration user interface merely describes a GUI where user can select mortgage adjustment rules to apply to a plurality of mortgage products to calculate pricing for the plurality of mortgage products. The claim language only requires:
“a first field for an addition of each rule selected from the plurality of rules to include in a plurality of individual rules that form a combination of rules”
“a second field for a selection of unique mortgage products for inclusion in a plurality of selected unique mortgage products selected from the plurality of unique mortgage products”
“a graphics display element for an application of the selected individual rules to the selected unique mortgage products included in the set of unique mortgage products”
displaying a menu of unique mortgage products
receiving an indication that the user has selected a plurality of unique mortgage products from the menu
receiving an instruction to apply the combination of rules to each of the selected unique mortgage products
generating a first specific mortgage product with an application of the combination of rules to the first unique mortgage product
generating a second specific mortgage product with an application of the combination of rules to the second unique mortgage product
Any GUI element that allows user to make selection, displays menu, receives user instruction, and performs repetitive calculations can satisfy the claim language. The recitation of the claimed GUI elements of the “first field”, the “second field”, and the “graphics display element” is merely applying a GUI to the abstract idea. Receiving the selections of the graphic display elements by the user is merely data gathering. The step of displaying information is merely extra solution activity. Generating specific mortgage products is merely performing calculations to determine specific pricing of the mortgage product under selected rules/conditions. These limitations do not improve GUI functionality or computer technology. Hence, the addition of these limitations does not integrate the abstract concept into a practical application or render the claims any less abstract.
Applicant amended the independent claims by positively reciting that a “single selection” of a “one-click graphics display element” generate an instruction to simultaneously apply the combination of rules to each of the selected unique mortgage products included in the set of mortgage products. Examiner points out that such “one-click” and “many-to-many” feature is not new in graphical user interface. Morejon et al. (Patent No.: US 8,515,863) teaches “the user can select one or more individual business rules 142 from the rule boxes 401, or can select all rules box 402 to indicate that they would like data quality server 110 to apply all business rules 142…Likewise, the user can select one or more of lender boxes 405 and data quality server 110 will apply the selected rules to only those loans originally funded by the identified lenders…once the user submits the report request by selecting generate report icon 407, data quality server 100 may generate an error report” (see col 5 line 60 through col 6 line 23). In this case, 401 is first field for user to select rules to be applied. 405 is the second field for user to select the loan products of lenders which the selected rules will be applied to. 407 is the one-click graphic display element for generating an instruction to simultaneously apply the combination of rules 401 to the selected loan products of lenders 405. Morejon et al. clearly teaches a “single selection” of a “one-click graphics display element” generating an instruction to simultaneously apply a combination of rules to each loan products of selected lender.
PNG
media_image1.png
462
639
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Morejon et al. was filed a decade prior to the present application. One skilled in the art at the time of filing of the present application would have the knowledge of “one-click graphics display element” for generating “many-to-many” instruction. As such, the amended claims do not recite limitations that improve GUI or computer functions. Therefore, the amended claims fail to integrate the abstract concept into a practical application. Applicant’s arguments revolve around the amended feature being conventional and an improvement over existing GUI. However, evidence suggest this is not the case.
The recitation of the computer elements amounts to mere instruction to implement an abstract concept on computers. The present claims do not solve a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks. Rather, the present claims implement an abstract concept using existing computer technology in a networked computer environment. The present claims do not recite limitation that improve the functioning of computer, effect a physical transformation, or apply the abstract concept in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract concept to a particular technological environment. As such, the present claims fail to integrate into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As discussed earlier, claims 1-8 and 19 recite a method that utilizes software application and a rule group configuration user interface as additional elements. Claims 10-17 and 20 recite a computer readable medium and a processor and a rule group computer configuration user interface as additional elements. The additional elements are claimed to perform basic computer functions, such as establishing rules (i.e., receiving, processing, and storing rule data), establishing mortgage products (i.e., receiving, processing, and storing mortgage product data), configuring a rule group including a combination of rules (i.e., providing a GUI with built-in elements to allow users to select rules from a pool), applying rules to the mortgage products to generate specific mortgage products (i.e., performing calculations to establish mortgage product pricing under selected rules/conditions). According to MPEP 2106.05(d), “performing repetitive calculations”, “receiving, processing, and storing data”, “electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document”, “electronic recordkeeping”, “storing and retrieving information in memory”, and “receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data” are considered well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of computer. Moreover, the Ameranth court found that generating restaurant menus with functionally claimed features, including a graphical user interface, displaying menu options and generating a menu by allowing selection of categories of items was insufficient to show an improvement in computer functionality (Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1245, 120 USPQ2d). Mere automation of manual processes by generic computer (Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017)) and speeding up manual processes by utilizing computer automation (LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc., 656 Fed. App'x 991, 996-97 (Fed. Cir. 2016)) are insufficient to show improvement in computer functionality. Further, Applicant’s specification states on page 19 line 10-18 that any generic computer may be utilized to implement the claimed steps and computer program. Page 9 line 11-14, page 9 line 30 through page 10 line 4, page 10 line 8-12, and page 11 line 1-21 also suggest that the present claims can be implemented by nothing more than an off-the-shelf general-purpose computer. The present claims do not improve the functioning of computer technology. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer or using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Therefore, the present claims are ineligible for patent.
Prior Art Cited but not Applied
Emswiler (Pub. No.: US 2010/0131390) is cited because the reference teaches “preliminary loan offer information may be provided to borrow based upon the initial matching of the credit application and the set of selection criteria provided by the lender” (see paragraph 0053). As such, Emswiler teaches selecting a unique mortgage product by applying a set of lender selected criteria/rules. However, Emswiler does not explicitly teach configuring a GUI to allow a user to form a rule group.
Bloomquist et al. (Patent No.: US 7,089,503) is cited because the reference teaches “mortgage loan customization according the present invention is rules-based. That is, the secondary mortgage market participant preferably sets rules for the selection and combination of the mortgage loan product features open to customization”. As such, Bloomquist teaches selecting a unique mortgage product by applying a set of lender selected criteria/rules. However, Bloomquist does not explicitly teach configuring a GUI to allow a user to form a rule group.
Response to Remarks
Examiner opens prosecution to place the application in better form for appeal. Applicant's arguments in the Appeal Brief filed on 01/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Amended claim features do not improve GUI functionality and Computer Technology
Applicant amended the independent claims by positively reciting that a “single selection” of a “one-click graphics display element” generate an instruction to simultaneously apply the combination of rules to each of the selected unique mortgage products included in the set of mortgage products. Examiner points out that such “one-click” and “many-to-many” feature is not new in graphical user interface. Morejon et al. (Patent No.: US 8,515,863) teaches “the user can select one or more individual business rules 142 from the rule boxes 401, or can select all rules box 402 to indicate that they would like data quality server 110 to apply all business rules 142…Likewise, the user can select one or more of lender boxes 405 and data quality server 110 will apply the selected rules to only those loans originally funded by the identified lenders…once the user submits the report request by selecting generate report icon 407, data quality server 100 may generate an error report” (see col 5 line 60 through col 6 line 23). In this case, 401 is first field for user to select rules to be applied. 405 is the second field for user to select the loan products of lenders which the selected rules will be applied to. 407 is the one-click graphic display element for generating an instruction to simultaneously apply the combination of rules 401 to the selected loan products of lenders 405. Morejon et al. clearly teaches a “single selection” of a “one-click graphics display element” generating an instruction to simultaneously apply a combination of rules to each loan products of selected lender.
PNG
media_image1.png
462
639
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Morejon et al. was filed a decade prior to the present application. One skilled in the art at the time of filing of the present application would have the knowledge of “one-click graphics display element” for generating “many-to-many” instruction. As such, the amended claims do not recite limitations that improve GUI or computer functions. Therefore, the amended claims fail to integrate the abstract concept into a practical application. Applicant’s arguments revolve around the amended feature being conventional and an improvement over existing GUI. However, evidence suggest this is not the case.
Step 2A Prong 2
Examiner acknowledged that Applicant has added some specificity with regards to GUI elements. However, the GUI for a “single selection” of a “one-click graphics display element” generate an instruction to simultaneously apply the combination of rules to a group of selected loan products was already a well-known feature prior to the present application, as evident in Morejon et al. (Patent No.: US 8,515,863). There were already existing GUI solutions to implement the abstract concept recited in the present claims, so the “many-to-many application of rule-logic” does not improve existing GUI technology or computer in general.
Applicant made analogy to Data Engine, Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. CQG, Inc., Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp. and Ex parte Desjardins. However, as Examiner explained earlier, the amended feature – providing a one-click GUI element to simultaneously apply a selected group of rules from a first field to a selected group of loans provided by lenders from a second field – was well-known and conventional in the art of GUI. The addition of the amended feature does not improve existing GUI technology or integrate the abstract concept into a practical application.
In Enfish, the claims at issue focused not on asserted advances in uses to which existing computer capabilities could be put, but on a specific improvement – a particular database technique (i.e., self-referential data structure) – in how computers could carry out one of their basic functions of storage and retrieval of data. To the contrary, Applicant’s claims, especially the “rule group configuration user interface”, merely focus on applying existing computer capabilities (i.e. repetitive data processing / workflow automation) rather than on a specific improvement of computer functionality.
Applicant argued that the pending claims recite a technical improvement in GUI. Applicant argued that the claimed invention “allows an application of logic provided by multiple rules to multiple different loan products, a many-to-many application of rules of loan products which was not available in prior approaches”. Examiner points out that this feature is merely an example of repetitive data processing, and can be implemented by any off-the-shelf computer. Examiner also points out that the present claims do not recite any specific GUI. Claim 1, for example, only requires configuring a GUI to allow a user to select a combination of rules to apply to mortgage products. The GUI in the claim is depicted in FIG. 5-FIG. 8, and appears to require only conventional GUI elements, such as table with rows and columns, pull down menu, and various windows for displaying rules and terms. Unlike the GUI in Core Wireless v. LG, the GUI in the present claims does not provide any performance improvement or new functionality to existing GUI technology. Instead, the claimed invention merely utilizes existing GUI technology to implement an abstract idea of applying a combination of rules to generate mortgage products to offer to borrowers. Thus, the present claims do not provide improvement in GUI technology or integrate the abstract concept into practical application.
Step 2B
Applicant argued that “claim 1 as amended herein recites a graphical user interface that provides a recited functionality to address and resolve specifically identified problems found in the prior state of the art software user interfaces for mortgage origination. As discussed earlier, the GUI for a “single selection” of a “one-click graphics display element” generate an instruction to simultaneously apply the combination of rules to a group of selected loan products was already a well-known feature prior to the present application, as evident in Morejon et al. (Patent No.: US 8,515,863).
Applicant also argued that the claims herein are similar to those in DDR Holdings because they include more than well-understood, routine, conventional activity. In particular, Applicant argued that “the claims recite a single graphical user interface for navigating a complex and comprehensive set of rules and unique mortgage products to allow computers, for the first time, to provide a user with tools to apply rules across selected unique mortgage products and apply those rules to all the selected unique mortgage products to generate a variety of different specific mortgage products with a single click, as well as the easy navigation of all of this data and functionality within a single graphical user interface”. Examiner disagrees and points out that arrange data on a GUI to allow user to navigate and process information more quickly is not sufficient to improve computer function. See Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Examiner also points out that unlike DDR, the present claims are directed to applying selected mortgage adjustment rules to create specific mortgage products, which is not a computer centric problem. The present claims, as amended, recite providing a one-click GUI element to simultaneously apply a selected group of rules from a first field to a selected group of loans provided by lenders from a second field, yet this feature could be implemented with existing GUI technology, as Morejon et al. (Patent No.: US 8,515,863) suggests.
Applicant further argued that the present claims are similar to those of Diamond v. Diehr, “where the Court ‘evaluated additional elements such as the steps of installing rubber in a press, closing the mold, constantly measuring the temperature in the mold, and automatically opening the press at the proper time, and found them to be meaningful because they sufficiently limited the use of the mathematical equation to the practical application of molding rubber products’”. Examiner disagrees and notes that this argument should be under Step 2A Prong Two. Examiner points out claims in Diamond v. Diehr recite a physical transformation of an article changing from one physical state to another (i.e. raw rubber turning into cured rubber). As such, the claims in Diamond v. Diehr satisfy the condition for integrating an abstract concept into practical application. The present claims, on the contrary, do not recite any physical transformation. In the present claims, group of selected loan products are being transformed by group of selected rules, but their physical state remains the same. Therefore, the present claims are not analogous to the claims in Diamond v. Diehr.
For the above reasons, the present claims are ineligible for patent. Examiner maintains the ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 HAO FU whose telephone number is (571)270-3441. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 6:00 PM PST.
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 on (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.
/HAO FU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697
MAR-2026