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 11/22/2025.
Claims 1, 14, and 18 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made 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.
Claim Objection
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: line 1 recites the limitation “an lending-and-brokering environment.” The indefinite article, “an” is incorrectly used before “lending-and-brokering environment.” It appears there is a typographical mistake because the indefinite article “a” should have been used instead. For compact examination purposes, Examiner interpreted the instances recited in Claim 15: line 1 as “a lending-and-brokering environment.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. For instance, in In re Hayes Microcomputer Products, the written description requirement was satisfied because the specification disclosed the specific type of microcomputer used in the claimed invention as well as the necessary steps for implementing the claimed function. The disclosure was in sufficient detail such that one skilled in the art would know how to program the microprocessor to perform the necessary steps described in the specification. In re Hayes Microcomputer Prods., Inc. Patent Litigation, 982 F.2d 1527, 1533-34, 25 USPQ2d 1241, ___ (Fed. Cir. 1992). In the present application, claim 1 disclose “wherein at least one of the server hosts comprises an artificial intelligence model configured to improve functioning of the one or more server hosts by overcoming inefficiencies of conventional, static rule-based underwriting systems ……. wherein the reward feedback circuit provides a specific technical improvement by enabling the artificial intelligence model to self-correct and improve its predictive accuracy without a need for manual reprogramming, thereby reducing processor-intensive recalibration cycles;” where “improve functioning of the one or more server hosts by overcoming inefficiencies of conventional, static rule-based underwriting systems” and “the reward feedback circuit provides a specific technical improvement by enabling the artificial intelligence model to self-correct and improve its predictive accuracy without a need for manual reprogramming, thereby reducing processor-intensive recalibration cycles” are not supported in the specification as to how the applicant is “…improving…” and “...enabling…” in order to show possession of the invention at the time of filing. While one skilled in the art could have devised a way to accomplish this aspect of the invention, Applicant’s original disclosure lacks sufficient detail to explain how Applicant envisioned achieving the goal of “….improve functioning of the one or more server hosts by overcoming inefficiencies of conventional, static rule-based underwriting systems….” and “… enabling the artificial intelligence model to self-correct and improve its predictive accuracy without a need for manual reprogramming, thereby reducing processor-intensive recalibration cycles”. Simply stating or re-stating the claim limitation does not provide enough support to show possession. Since these important details about how the invention operates are not disclosed, it is not readily evident that Applicant has full possession of the invention at the time of filing (i.e., the original disclosure fails to provide adequate written description to support the claimed invention as a whole). Neither the specification nor the drawings disclose in detail the specific steps or algorithm needed to perform the operation. If the specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and algorithm in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention including how to program the disclosed computer to perform the claimed function, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112a, for lack of written description must be made. For more information regarding the written description requirement, see MPEP §2161.01- §2163.07(b).
Dependent claims 2-20 are rejected by virtue of dependency on Independent Claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function, In re Danly 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 582, 531 (CCPA 1959). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1657 (bd Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). However, the claim does not positively recite any elements that necessarily constitute a system or apparatus, such as computer hardware. It is not clear what structure is included or excluded by the claim language. The structural limitations of these claims are interpreted as computer code or software per-se and are not statutory. Claims 1-20 recite lending platform, brokering platform, third-party integration, underwriting systems, reward feedback circuit, and entity-relationship management layer. The lending platform, brokering platform, third-party integration, underwriting systems, reward feedback circuit, and entity-relationship management layer are not claimed as embodied in computer-readable media are functional descriptive material per se and are considered to be software per se, which is not statutory (see MPEP 2106.03). Here, Applicant has claimed systems defined merely by software or terms synonymous with software or files, namely “lending platform, brokering platform, third-party integration, underwriting systems, reward feedback circuit, and entity-relationship management layer,” lacking storage on a medium, which does not enable any underlying functionality to occur. Examiner recommends amending the claim to clearly include hardware in order to overcome this rejection. Additionally, any amendments must be fully supported by the specification.
Examiner respectfully notes that even if Claims 1-20 are directed to statutory subject matter (e.g. a system), Claims 1-20 would be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of facilitating information sharing for selling and buying of assets, and processing lending and brokering information, without significantly more. Considering Claims 1-20 are directed to statutory subject matter (e.g. a system), which they are not, Examiner provides below a full analysis of the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of Claims 1-20.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of facilitating information sharing for selling and buying of assets, and processing lending and brokering information, without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed to a system (currently as recited it is not directed to statutory subject matter -system ). (Step 1: YES).
Claim 1 is directed to a system for an lending-and-brokering environment operable by way of a set of executable instructions stored on non-transient machine-readable media of one or more server hosts, comprising: a lending platform configured to facilitate processing of lending-related information among lending personnel; a brokering platform configured to facilitate processing of brokering-related information among brokering personnel; third-party integration by way of one or more interfaces with the lending-and-brokering environment; a neural network trained on one or more datasets comprising at least one of user account histories, readjustments, determinations, and qualifying offers; wherein at least one of the server hosts comprises an artificial intelligence model configured to improve functioning of the one or more server hosts by overcoming inefficiencies of conventional, static rule-based underwriting systems, the artificial intelligence model being further configured to: analyze customer account history and credit information; generate individualized lending profiles by dynamically assessing risk factors using one or more machine learning algorithms trained on historical lending data, including user account histories, previous adjustments, and qualifying thresholds; utilize a reward feedback circuit to modify one or more assigned weights based on a desired outcome, wherein adjustments are inputted into the artificial intelligence model as training data to enhance predictive accuracy and loan qualification determinations and wherein the reward feedback circuit provides a specific technical improvement by enabling the artificial intelligence model to self-correct and improve its predictive accuracy without a need for manual reprogramming, thereby reducing processor-intensive recalibration cycles; and an entity-relationship management layer configured to facilitate information sharing among the lending platform, the brokering platform, and the one or more third-party integration, thereby facilitating selling one or more assets, buying the one or more assets, or a combination thereof for a customer without a need for the customer to provide duplicative customer information to the lending personnel, the brokering personnel, or the one or more third parties. These series of steps describe the abstract idea of facilitating information sharing for selling and buying of assets, and processing lending and brokering information (with the exception of the italicized and bolded terms above), which is mitigating risk through generating and processing lending profiles by assessing risk factors based on historical lending data, including user account histories, previous adjustments, and qualifying thresholds; 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 facilitating of selling and buying one or assets, which is a commercial interaction. Therefore, a commercial interaction is also a Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The system limitations, e.g., a non-transient machine-readable media, one or more server hosts, lending platform, brokering platform, third-party integration, one or more interfaces, artificial intelligence model, underwriting systems, one or more machine learning algorithms, reward feedback circuit, neural network, and entity-relationship management layer, 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 non-transient machine-readable media, one or more server hosts, lending platform, brokering platform, third-party integration, one or more interfaces, artificial intelligence model, underwriting systems, one or more machine learning algorithms, reward feedback circuit, and entity-relationship management layer, 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)). 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 non-transient machine-readable media, one or more server hosts, lending platform, brokering platform, third-party integration, one or more interfaces, artificial intelligence model, underwriting systems, one or more machine learning algorithms, reward feedback circuit, and entity-relationship management layer 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 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 2-20 are directed to a system (currently as recited it is not statutory subject matter), which perform the steps that describe the abstract idea of facilitating information sharing for selling and buying of assets, and processing lending and brokering information. Furthermore, dependent claims 3-14, 16, and 18 are directed to a system (currently as recited it is not statutory subject matter), which perform the steps: “wherein the lending platform includes a secured loan-lending system and an unsecured loan-lending system; wherein the secured loan-lending system includes at least a mortgage-lending subsystem having a mortgage-originating subsystem and a mortgage servicing subsystem; wherein the unsecured loan-lending system includes at least a personal loan-lending subsystem having a personal loan-originating subsystem and a personal loan-servicing subsystem; wherein the lending platform includes a lender-oriented application stack configured to run at least in part from a primary memory of at least one server host of the lending platform, the lender-oriented application stack including one or more web servers, one or more application servers, and one or more database servers; wherein the one or more application servers include at least a web application configured for the secured loan-lending system and at least a web application configured for the unsecured loan-lending system; and wherein the one or more database servers are configured to store the customer information in one or more databases for sharing among the lending personnel, the brokering personnel, or the one or more third parties; wherein the brokering platform includes a real estate brokering system and a home improvement-brokering system; wherein the real estate-brokering system includes at least a home-buying subsystem, a home-selling subsystem, and a title-and-escrow-servicing subsystem; wherein the home improvement-brokering system includes at least a purchasing subsystem and a servicing subsystem; wherein the brokering platform includes a broker-oriented application stack configured to run at least in part from a primary memory of at least one server host of the brokering platform, the broker-oriented application stack including one or more web servers, one or more application servers, and one or more database servers; wherein the one or more application servers include at least a web application configured for the real estate-brokering system and at least a web application configured for the home improvement-brokering system; and wherein the one or more database servers are configured to store the customer information in one or more databases for sharing among the lending personnel, the brokering personnel, or the one or more third parties; wherein the one or more interfaces with the lending-and brokering environment include one or more application programming interfaces, one or more web applications, or at least one application programming interface and at least one web application; wherein the integrated lending-and-brokering environment includes a customer-oriented web application of a customer-oriented application stack configured to run at least in part from a primary memory of at least one server host of the lending-and-brokering environment; wherein a web server of the customer-oriented application stack is configured to send the customer information or inquiries to the one or more third parties; and wherein a database server of the customer-oriented application stack is configured to store the customer information or inquiries sent to the one or more third parties, the relevant information to the customer information or inquiries received from the one or more third parties, or a combination thereof in one or more databases for the information sharing among the lending platform, the brokering platform, and the one or more third parties.” These series of steps describe the abstract idea of facilitating information sharing for selling and buying of assets, and processing lending and brokering information (with the exception of the italicized and bolded terms above), which is mitigating risk through generating and processing lending profiles by assessing risk factors based on historical lending data, including user account histories, previous adjustments, and qualifying thresholds; 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 facilitating of selling and buying one or assets, which is a commercial interaction. Therefore, a commercial interaction is also a Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Thus, claims 2-20 recites an abstract idea. The additional elements of: a non-transient machine-readable media, one or more server hosts, lending platform, brokering platform, third-party integration, one or more interfaces, artificial intelligence model, underwriting systems, one or more machine learning algorithms, reward feedback circuit, entity-relationship management layer, secured loan-lending system, unsecured loan-lending system, mortgage-lending subsystem, mortgage-originating subsystem, mortgage servicing subsystem, personal loan-lending subsystem, personal loan-originating subsystem, personal loan-servicing subsystem, lender-oriented application stack, primary memory, one or more web servers, one or more application servers, one or more database servers, web application configured for the unsecured loan-lending system, one or more databases, real estate brokering system, home improvement-brokering system, home-buying subsystem, home-selling subsystem, title-and-escrow-servicing subsystem, purchasing subsystem, servicing subsystem, broker-oriented application stack, web application configured for the real estate-brokering system, web application configured for the home improvement-brokering system, one or more application programming interfaces, one or more web applications, integrated lending-and-brokering environment, lending-and-brokering environment, customer-oriented web application, customer-oriented application stack, web server of the customer-oriented application stack, database server of the customer-oriented application stack, and one or more databases for the information sharing, 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)). 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 non-transient machine-readable media, one or more server hosts, lending platform, brokering platform, third-party integration, one or more interfaces, artificial intelligence model, underwriting systems, one or more machine learning algorithms, reward feedback circuit, entity-relationship management layer, secured loan-lending system, unsecured loan-lending system, mortgage-lending subsystem, mortgage-originating subsystem, mortgage servicing subsystem, personal loan-lending subsystem, personal loan-originating subsystem, personal loan-servicing subsystem, lender-oriented application stack, primary memory, one or more web servers, one or more application servers, one or more database servers, web application configured for the unsecured loan-lending system, one or more databases, real estate brokering system, home improvement-brokering system, home-buying subsystem, home-selling subsystem, title-and-escrow-servicing subsystem, purchasing subsystem, servicing subsystem, broker-oriented application stack, web application configured for the real estate-brokering system, web application configured for the home improvement-brokering system, one or more application programming interfaces, one or more web applications, integrated lending-and-brokering environment, lending-and-brokering environment, customer-oriented web application, customer-oriented application stack, web server of the customer-oriented application stack, database server of the customer-oriented application stack, and one or more databases for the information sharing, 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 2-20 have further defined the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claim: Claim 1, and correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity; and hence, dependent claims 2-20 are abstract in nature for the reason presented above. The dependent claims 2-20 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, dependent claims 2-20 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Thus, claims 1-20 are not patent-eligible.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the objection of claims 1, 13, and 14, the objections are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s arguments/remarks made in an amendment filed on 11/22/2025. However, new claim objection has been given with regards to Claim 1. In view of the grounds for the claim objection presented above in this office action, appropriate correction is required.
Applicant's arguments filed on 11/22/2025 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive due to the following reasons:
With respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), 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 asserts that “Claims 1-20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(a). Applicant respectfully submits that appropriate corrections have been entered as noted above, thereby rendering the rejections of this section moot. Notice to that effect is respectfully requested.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner respectfully notes that the appropriate corrections were not made to address 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection of Claims 1-20. Therefore, Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Hence, Examiner respectfully declines Applicant’s request to withdraw the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection of claims 1-20.
With respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 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 “Claims 1-20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Applicant respectfully disagrees and incorporates by reference all previous arguments with respect to this section. In addition, claim 1 has been amended to recite "a neural network trained on one or more datasets comprising at least one of user account histories, readjustments, determinations, and qualifying offers". Especially as amended, the claims reflect a specific, technically trained neural network operating on defined datasets that directly address the shortcomings of conventional underwriting systems. By training the neural network on user account histories, prior readjustments, system determinations, and qualifying offers, the system gains the ability to recognize non-linear patterns and dynamic risk indicators that static rules cannot capture. In practical terms, this training allows the system to generate more precise lending profiles, respond to historical adjustment patterns, and refine determinations in real time. As a result, the claims as amended contribute a technical improvement to data processing and risk assessment within the computing environment, showing that the invention is more than an abstract idea and instead improves how the computer system performs underwriting computations.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Under Step 2A: Prong 1, as previously discussed in the Final Office Action- dated 02/13/2025 and Non-Final Office Action- dated 07/31/2025, Examiner respectfully notes that claim, as amended, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of facilitating information sharing for selling and buying of assets, and processing lending and brokering information; without significantly more. The series of steps recited in claim 1, as amended, describe the abstract idea of facilitating information sharing for selling and buying of assets, and processing lending and brokering information, which is mitigating risk through generating and processing lending profiles by assessing risk factors based on historical lending data, including user account histories, previous adjustments, and qualifying thresholds; 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 facilitating of selling and buying one or assets, which is a commercial interaction. Therefore, a commercial interaction is also a Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Furthermore, the system limitations, e.g., a non-transient machine-readable media, one or more server hosts, lending platform, brokering platform, third-party integration, one or more interfaces, artificial intelligence model, underwriting systems, one or more machine learning algorithms, reward feedback circuit, neural network, and entity-relationship management layer do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea.
Furthermore, as previously discussed, Examiner respectfully notes that the claims are first analyzed in the absence of technology to determine if it recites an abstract idea. The additional limitations of technology are then considered to determine if it restricts the claim from reciting an abstract idea. In this case, and as discussed in the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, it is determined that the additional limitations of technology do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. Furthermore, Examiner respectfully notes that the recited features in the limitations: “a system for an lending-and-brokering environment operable by way of a set of executable instructions stored on non-transient machine-readable media of one or more server hosts, comprising: a lending platform configured to facilitate processing of lending-related information among lending personnel; a brokering platform configured to facilitate processing of brokering-related information among brokering personnel; third-party integration by way of one or more interfaces with the lending-and-brokering environment; a neural network trained on one or more datasets comprising at least one of user account histories, readjustments, determinations, and qualifying offers; wherein at least one of the server hosts comprises an artificial intelligence model configured to improve functioning of the one or more server hosts by overcoming inefficiencies of conventional, static rule-based underwriting systems, the artificial intelligence model being further configured to: analyze customer account history and credit information; generate individualized lending profiles by dynamically assessing risk factors using one or more machine learning algorithms trained on historical lending data, including user account histories, previous adjustments, and qualifying thresholds; utilize a reward feedback circuit to modify one or more assigned weights based on a desired outcome, wherein adjustments are inputted into the artificial intelligence model as training data to enhance predictive accuracy and loan qualification determinations and wherein the reward feedback circuit provides a specific technical improvement by enabling the artificial intelligence model to self-correct and improve its predictive accuracy without a need for manual reprogramming, thereby reducing processor-intensive recalibration cycles; and an entity-relationship management layer configured to facilitate information sharing among the lending platform, the brokering platform, and the one or more third-party integration, thereby facilitating selling one or more assets, buying the one or more assets, or a combination thereof for a customer without a need for the customer to provide duplicative customer information to the lending personnel, the brokering personnel, or the one or more third parties” are making use of a computer and the computer limitations do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea as discussed above under Step 2A-Prong 1 of the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection.
Hence, Examiner has also considered each and every arguments under Step 2A-Prong 1 and concludes that these arguments are not persuasive. For example, under Step 2A-Prong 1, Examiner considers each and every limitation to determine if the claim recites an abstract idea. In this case, it is determined that the claim recites an abstract idea and the additional limitations of a computer device does not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. The recited steps, as amended, are abstract in nature as there are no technical/technology improvements as a result of these steps. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea. Whether the claim integrates the abstract idea into a practical application by providing technical/technology improvements are considered under Step 2A-Prong 2.
Under Step 2A: Prong II, as previously discussed in the Final Office Action- dated 02/13/2025 and Non-Final Office Action- dated 07/31/2025, as discussed in the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance and July 2024 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Examiner respectfully notes that there is no improved technology in simply processing, facilitating, using, analyzing, generating, using, utilizing, modifying, adjusting, inputting, sharing, and providing data (i.e., lending-related information, brokering-relating information, customer account history data, credit information, historical information, and etc.). As previously discussed in the Final Office Action- dated 02/13/2025 and Non-Final Office Action- dated 07/31/2025, the disclosed invention cannot be equated to improvement to technological practices or computers. There is no technical improvement at all. Instead, Applicant recites “a system for an lending-and-brokering environment operable by way of a set of executable instructions stored on non-transient machine-readable media of one or more server hosts, comprising: a lending platform configured to facilitate processing of lending-related information among lending personnel; a brokering platform configured to facilitate processing of brokering-related information among brokering personnel; third-party integration by way of one or more interfaces with the lending-and-brokering environment; a neural network trained on one or more datasets comprising at least one of user account histories, readjustments, determinations, and qualifying offers; wherein at least one of the server hosts comprises an artificial intelligence model configured to improve functioning of the one or more server hosts by overcoming inefficiencies of conventional, static rule-based underwriting systems, the artificial intelligence model being further configured to: analyze customer account history and credit information; generate individualized lending profiles by dynamically assessing risk factors using one or more machine learning algorithms trained on historical lending data, including user account histories, previous adjustments, and qualifying thresholds; utilize a reward feedback circuit to modify one or more assigned weights based on a desired outcome, wherein adjustments are inputted into the artificial intelligence model as training data to enhance predictive accuracy and loan qualification determinations and wherein the reward feedback circuit provides a specific technical improvement by enabling the artificial intelligence model to self-correct and improve its predictive accuracy without a need for manual reprogramming, thereby reducing processor-intensive recalibration cycles; and an entity-relationship management layer configured to facilitate information sharing among the lending platform, the brokering platform, and the one or more third-party integration, thereby facilitating selling one or more assets, buying the one or more assets, or a combination thereof for a customer without a need for the customer to provide duplicative customer information to the lending personnel, the brokering personnel, or the one or more third parties.” 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. As previously discussed, the recited features in the limitations, as amended, does not disclose a technical solution to technical problem, but simply a business solution. Specifically, the recited steps, as amended, are merely managing/processing data (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)) and do not result in computer functionality or technical improvement. Thus, Applicant has simply provided a business method practice of processing data (lending-related information, brokering-relating information, customer account history data, credit information, historical information, and etc.), and no technical solution or improvement has been disclosed.
Moreover, 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 facilitating information sharing for selling and buying of assets, and processing lending and brokering information. 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) 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.
Additionally, Claim 1, as amended, recites 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, processing, and outputting. 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. The recited steps in claim 1, as amended, are recited as being performed by a non-transient machine-readable media, one or more server hosts, lending platform, brokering platform, third-party integration, one or more interfaces, artificial intelligence model, underwriting systems, one or more machine learning algorithms, reward feedback circuit, neural network, and entity-relationship management layer. The additional elements: a non-transient machine-readable media, one or more server hosts, lending platform, brokering platform, third-party integration, one or more interfaces, artificial intelligence model, underwriting systems, one or more machine learning algorithms, reward feedback circuit, neural network, and entity-relationship management layer 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). Similar to 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility: Example 47 (claim 2) and Example 48 (claim 1), amended claim 1, recites a non-transient machine-readable media, one or more server hosts, lending platform, brokering platform, third-party integration, one or more interfaces, artificial intelligence model, underwriting systems, one or more machine learning algorithms, reward feedback circuit, neural network, and entity-relationship management layer, which are 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 non-transient machine-readable media, one or more server hosts, lending platform, brokering platform, third-party integration, one or more interfaces, artificial intelligence model, underwriting systems, one or more machine learning algorithms, reward feedback circuit, neural network, and entity-relationship management layer” in the limitations of claim 1, as amended, merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. Also, the recitation of the elements: “a non-transient machine-readable media, one or more server hosts, lending platform, brokering platform, third-party integration, one or more interfaces, artificial intelligence model, neural network, underwriting systems, one or more machine learning algorithms, reward feedback circuit, entity-relationship management layer, secured loan-lending system, unsecured loan-lending system, mortgage-lending subsystem, mortgage-originating subsystem, mortgage servicing subsystem, personal loan-lending subsystem, personal loan-originating subsystem, personal loan-servicing subsystem, lender-oriented application stack, primary memory, one or more web servers, one or more application servers, one or more database servers, web application configured for the unsecured loan-lending system, one or more databases, real estate brokering system, home improvement-brokering system, home-buying subsystem, home-selling subsystem, title-and-escrow-servicing subsystem, purchasing subsystem, servicing subsystem, broker-oriented application stack, web application configured for the real estate-brokering system, web application configured for the home improvement-brokering system, one or more application programming interfaces, one or more web applications, integrated lending-and-brokering environment, lending-and-brokering environment, customer-oriented web application, customer-oriented application stack, web server of the customer-oriented application stack, database server of the customer-oriented application stack, and one or more databases for the information sharing” in the limitations of dependent claims 2-20 merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. Specifically, the additional elements, as listed above, are all recited at a high level of generality and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computing arrangement. Merely invoking the above listed additional elements is similar to invoking software and software components. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than to implement the claimed invention (MPEP 2106.05(f)). 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. The claim, as amended, 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 (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES). Hence, claims 1-20, as amended, do 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 1-20.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure are the following:
Misraje (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2010/0114743 A1) “Computer system and method for networked interchange of data and information for members of the real estate financial and related transactional services industry”
Thomas (U.S. reissued Patent No. US RE47,762 E) “Computerized process to, for example, automate the home sale, mortgage loan financing and settlement process, and the home mortgage loan refinancing and settlement processes”
Jae (K.R. Patent Application No. KR 2019-0041891 A) “Method and system for providing real estate strategy using artificial intelligence”
Narayan (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2013/0346286 A1) “Method and system for providing a loan using equity in a new home”
Hu (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2003/0233316 A1) “Online system for fulfiling loan applications from loan originators”
Barkas (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2019/0311429 A1) “Systems and methods for private loan creation”
Saxena (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2018/0165598 A1) “Method for providing financial-related, blockchain-associated cognitive insights using blockchains”
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 extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
/BRUCE I EBERSMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693