DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
2. The Applicant filed Amendments on 09/30/2025. Claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-17, 19-21, and 23-24 are pending and are rejected for the reasons set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-17, 19-21, and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
5. Analysis:
Step 1: Statutory Category?: (is the claim(s) directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?) - YES: In the instant case, claims 19-20 are directed to a computer-implemented method (i.e., process), claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-17, 21, and 23-24 directed to a dynamic pre-approval system (i.e., machine).
Regarding independent claim 1:
Step 2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?: (is the claim(s) recited a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon) – YES: Independent claim 1 recites the at least following limitations of “…to display … that includes a plurality of editable fields, a first subset of the plurality of editable fields associated with identity information, and a second subset of the plurality of editable fields associated with vehicle information; responsive to monitoring the plurality of editable fields for edits, detect when a field has been edited by receiving for processing, for each input to the plurality of editable fields as a respective input occurs, a respective transmission … that represents the respective input; dynamically determine, … to generate a near instant output, a pre-approval based on the monitoring of the plurality of editable fields by, for each edit of a plurality of edits to the plurality of fields: using a current state of the plurality of fields to generate a pre-approval rate and a confidence score; and … to dynamically change … to include the pre-approval rate and the confidence score based on the current state of the plurality of fields, such that the pre-approval rate and the confidence score are dynamically updated with each edit of the plurality of edits as each respective transmission ….” These recited limitations of the claim, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they cover performance of the limitations in commercial interactions (including sales activities/car loan approval) for generating a pre-approval rate and a confidence score for a potential buyer to purchase a vehicle at a dealer – See Specification [0002]. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?: (is the claim(s) recited additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception) - NO: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, independent claim 1 further to the abstract idea includes additional elements of “one or more processors”, “a memory”, “a user device”, “a graphical user interface (GUI)”, and “a first machine learning model”. However, the additional elements recite generic computer components such as a computer, computing devices, a server, and/or software programing that are recited a high-level of generality that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the additional elements evaluated individually and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they comprise or include limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application such as adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?: (is the claim(s) recited additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception) - NO: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “one or more processors”, “a memory”, “a user device”, “a graphical user interface (GUI)”, and “a first machine learning model” evaluated individually and in combination do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, or are not more than merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more - See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim is patent-ineligible.
Regarding independent claim 10:
Step 2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?: (is the claim(s) recited a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon) – YES: Independent claim 10 recites the at least following limitations of “receive first identity information; generate a pre-approval rate and a confidence score based on the first identity information; generate … the pre-approval rate, the confidence score, and a request for additional information; transmit … for display; receive additional information by monitoring a plurality of editable fields for edits and receiving each separate edit by receiving a respective transmission … that represents a respective separate edit in response to each respective separate edit being input into the plurality of editable fields; and for each separate edit received; generate, … to generate a near instant output, an updated pre-approval rate and an updated confidence score based on the first identity information and the additional information; generate … the updated pre-approval rate and the updated confidence score; and transmit .. for display ….” These recited limitations of the claim, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they cover performance of the limitations in commercial interactions (including sales activities/car loan approval) for generating a pre-approval rate and a confidence score for a potential buyer to purchase a vehicle at a dealer – See Specification [0002]. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?: (is the claim(s) recited additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception) - NO: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, independent claim 10 further to the abstract idea includes additional elements of “one or more processors”, “a memory”, “a graphical user interface (GUI)”, “a user device”, and “a first machine learning model (MLM)”. However, the additional elements recite generic computer components such as a computer, computing devices, a server, and/or software programing that are recited a high-level of generality that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the additional elements evaluated individually and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they comprise or include limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application such as adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?: (is the claim(s) recited additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception) - NO: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “one or more processors”, “a memory”, “a graphical user interface (GUI)”, “a user device”, and “a first machine learning model (MLM)” evaluated individually and in combination do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, or are not more than merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more - See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim is patent-ineligible.
Regarding independent claim 19:
Step 2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?: (is the claim(s) recited a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon) – YES: Independent claim 19 recites the at least following limitations of “receiving first identity information; generating a pre-approval rate and a confidence score based on the first identity information generating, … to generate a first near instant output, the pre-approval rate, the confidence score, and a request for additional information; transmitting … for display; receiving additional information by monitoring a plurality of editable fields for edits and receiving each separate edit by receiving a respective transmission … that represents a respective separate edit in response to each respective edit being input into the plurality of editable fields; and for each separate edit received; generating, … to generate a second near instant output, an updated pre-approval rate and an updated confidence score based on the first identity information and the additional information; generating … the updated pre-approval rate and the updated confidence score; and transmitting … for display ….” These recited limitations of the claim, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they cover performance of the limitations in commercial interactions (including sales activities/car loan approval) for generating a pre-approval rate and a confidence score for a potential buyer to purchase a vehicle at a dealer – See Specification [0002]. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?: (is the claim(s) recited additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception) - NO: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, independent claim 19 further to the abstract idea includes additional elements of “a machine learning model (MLM)”, “a graphical user interface (GUI)” and “a user device”. However, the additional elements recite generic computer components such as a computer, computing devices, a server, and/or software programing that are recited a high-level of generality that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the additional elements evaluated individually and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they comprise or include limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application such as adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?: (is the claim(s) recited additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception) - NO: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “a machine learning model (MLM)”, “a graphical user interface (GUI)” and “a user device” evaluated individually and in combination do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, or are not more than merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more - See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim is patent-ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-5, 7-9, 11, 13-17, 21, and 23-24 have been given the full two-part analysis, analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claims, when analyzed individually and in combination, are also held to be patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent claims 2, 3, 11, 13, 20: simply provide further definition to “the identity information; the first identity information; the vehicle information; the additional information” recited in independent claims 1, 10, and 19. Simply stating that wherein the identity information comprises first name, last name, an identity number, birthdate, home address, or combinations thereof; wherein: the first identity information comprises first name and last name; wherein the vehicle information comprises a vehicle price, vehicle identification number (VIN), vehicle make, vehicle model, vehicle year, or combinations thereof; wherein the first identity information comprises first name, last name, an identity number, birthdate, home address, or combinations thereof; wherein the additional information comprises a vehicle price, vehicle identification number (VIN), vehicle make, vehicle model, vehicle year, or combinations thereof; wherein: the first identity information comprises first name and last name; and the additional information comprises an identity number; wherein: the first identity information comprises first name, last name, an identity number, birthdate, home address, or combinations thereof; and the additional information comprises a vehicle price, vehicle identification number (VIN), vehicle make, vehicle model, vehicle year, or combinations thereof does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claims 4, 14, 15: simply provide further definition to “determining the pre-approval; the memory” recited in independent claims 1 and 10. Simply stating that wherein determining the pre-approval further comprises: determining whether the identity information corresponds to a retrieved or stored identity number; and updating the GUI to comprise an indication that the identity information is not verified in response to determining that the identity information does not correspond to the retrieved or stored identity number; wherein the memory stores further instructions that are configured to cause the system to: determine whether the first identity information corresponds to a retrieved or stored identity number; and responsive to determining that the first identity information does not correspond to the retrieved or stored identity number, modify the updated GUI to comprise an indication that the first identity information does not correspond to the additional information; wherein the memory stores further instructions that are configured to cause the system to: responsive to determining that the first identity information corresponds to the retrieved or stored identity number, modify the updated GUI to comprise an indication that the first identity information corresponds to the additional information amounts to no more than merely applying generic computer components and/or software programing to implement the abstract idea on a computer (i.e., the GUI).Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claim 5: simply provide further definition to “determining the pre-approval” recited in independent claim 1. Simply stating that wherein determining the pre-approval further comprises updating the GUI to comprise an indication that the identity information corresponds is verified in response to determining that the identity information corresponds to the retrieved or stored identity number amounts to no more than merely applying generic computer components and/or software programing to implement the abstract idea on a computer (i.e., the GUI).Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claims 7, 16: simply provide further definition to “determining the pre-approval; the memory” recited in independent claims 1 and 10. Simply stating that wherein determining the pre-approval further comprises: determining, using a second machine learning model and a vehicle information database, whether the vehicle information is accurate; and updating the GUI to comprise an indication that the vehicle information is not accurate in response to determining that the vehicle information is not accurate; wherein the memory stores further instructions that are configured to cause the system to: determine, using a machine learning model and a vehicle information database, whether the vehicle information is accurate; and responsive to determining that the vehicle information is not accurate, modify the updated GUI to comprise an indication that the vehicle information is not accurate amounts to no more than merely applying generic computer components and/or software programing to implement the abstract idea on a computer (i.e., a second machine learning model, a vehicle information database, the GUI).Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claims 8, 17: simply provide further definition to “determining the pre-approval; the memory” recited in independent claims 1 and 10. Simply stating that wherein determining the pre-approval further comprises updating the GUI to comprise an indication that the vehicle information is accurate in response to determining that the vehicle information is accurate; wherein the memory stores further instructions that are configured to cause the system to: responsive to determining that the vehicle information is accurate, modify the updated GUI to comprise an indication that the vehicle information is accurate amounts to no more than merely applying generic computer components and/or software programing to implement the abstract idea on a computer (i.e., the GUI).Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claim 9: simply provide further definition to “the first machine learning model” recited in independent claim 1. Simply stating that wherein the first machine learning model is trained to generate confidence scores from incomplete and complete identify information, vehicle information, or both; wherein generating the confidence score utilizes a machine learning model amounts to no more than merely applying generic computer components and/or software programing to implement the abstract idea on a computer (i.e., the first machine learning model).Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claim 21: simply provide further definition to “additional information” recited in independent claim 10. Simply stating that wherein additional information is received via the user device than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B amounts to no more than merely applying generic computer components and/or software programing to implement the abstract idea on a computer (i.e., the user device).Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more).
Dependent claim 23: simply provide further definition to “each respective transmission” recited in independent claim 1. Simply stating that wherein each respective transmission is received from the user device immediately as the respective input is entered into the GUI amounts to no more than merely applying generic computer components and/or software programing to implement the abstract idea on a computer (i.e., the user device, the GUI).Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more).
Dependent claim 24: simply provide further definition to “each respective input” recited in independent claim 1. Simply stating that wherein each respective input comprises a number or letter entered into the plurality of editable fields and each respective transmission represents the number or letter entered into the plurality of editable fields does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more).
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
6. 35 U.S.C. §101 Rejections: Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-17, 19-21, and 23-24 that are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been considered but they are not persuasive because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
1. Applicant’s Argument: From Applicant Arguments/Remarks, Applicants submit that Claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-17, 19-21, and 23-24 Are Patent Eligible Because They Do Not Fall Under Enumerated Groupings of Abstract Idea At Step 2A Prong One of the subject matter eligibility analysis, the Office Action alleges that the claims "fall within the 'Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity' grouping of abstract ideas." Office Action p. 3. Applicant respectfully disagrees. The Office Action improperly "oversimplif[ies] the claims by looking at them generally and failing to account for the specific requirements of the claims." MPEP §2106.05(a) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). he instant claims do not merely recite "methods of organizing human activities," but instead recite several detailed steps and features that point to specific improvements in computing device capabilities. See, e.g., Core Wireless Licensing v. LG Electronics, Inc., 880 F.3d 1356, 1361-62 (Fed. Cir. 2018); Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1338-39; Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343, 1348-49 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corp., 867 F.3d 1253, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2018). For example, amended independent Claim 1 recites: 1. A dynamic pre-approval system comprising: one or more processors; … such that the pre-approval rate and the confidence score are dynamically updated with each edit of the plurality of edits. These elements do not recite "certain methods of organizing human activity" as asserted by the Office Action, because they do not recite "fundamental economic principles or practices . . .; commercial or legal interactions (including . . .advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); … such that the pre-approval rate and the confidence score are dynamically updated with each edit of the plurality of edits," are not a commercial interaction as alleged in the Office Action because these steps relate to technological steps of displaying and monitoring editable fields in a GUI in order to dynamically display an updated pre-approval rate in the GUI. These are non- abstract steps that are rooted in technology. Independent Claims 10 and 19 include similar features relating to dynamic changes made to a GUI for the purpose of displaying an updated pre-approval rate. For at least these reasons, Claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-17, 19-21, and 23-24 do not fall under the enumerated grouping of an abstract idea (See Applicant Arguments/Remarks Pages 2-4).
In response to Applicant’s arguments, Examiner respectfully submits that independent claims 1, 10, 19 at issue recite limitations as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they cover performance of the limitations in commercial interactions (including sales activities/car loan approval) for generating a pre-approval rate and a confidence score for a potential buyer to purchase a vehicle at a dealer – See Specification [0002]. See details of Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 of claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-17, 19-21, and 23-24 in the section above.
2. Applicant’s Argument: From Applicant Arguments/Remarks, Applicants submit that Claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-17, 19-21, and 23-24 Are Patent Eligible Because They Recite a Practical Application Even assuming arguendo that the instant claims do fall into one of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas, which Applicant does not concede, the claims are patent eligible because they integrate any alleged judicial exception into a practical application. As explained by the MPEP, "mere recitation of a judicial exception does not mean that the claim is 'directed to' that judicial exception under Step 2A Prong Two." MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(2). Accordingly, a claim that recites a judicial exception may not be directed to the judicial exception if "the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception." To determine whether the claims integrate a judicial exception into a practical application, the Examiner must analyze "the limitations containing the judicial exception as well as the additional elements in the claim besides the judicial exception." MPEP § 2106.04(d)(III) … (Applicant respectfully submits that the claims are patent-eligible because the claims integrate the alleged abstract idea by using a computing system that includes various components such as including at least one of "one or more processors" in a "meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception" … Specifically, "responsive to monitoring the plurality of editable fields for edits, detect when a field has been edited" and "dynamically determine a pre-approval based on the monitoring of the plurality of editable fields ... such that the pre-approval rate and the confidence score are dynamically updated with each edit of the plurality of edits" disclose the practical application of "dynamically generating preapproval data. More particularly, the disclosed technology relates to generating and providing for display in a graphical user interface (GUI) a pre-approval rate and confidence score for a potential buyer that dynamically changes as more information is inputted into the system" … Similar to Example 37, independent Claim 1 recites "responsive to monitoring the plurality of editable fields for edits, detect when a field [displayed by the GUI] has been edited, ”dynamically determine a pre-approval based on the monitoring of the plurality of editable fields by, for each edit of a plurality of edits to the plurality of fields: … This is analogous to the sample claims presented above because the present system similarly provides for the dynamically altering the presentation of a GUI based on a determination automatically performed by the system in response to a user input via the GUI. Independent Claims 10 and 19 recite similar features. Furthermore, the "causing the user device to dynamically change the GUI to include the pre-approval rate and confidence score ... [such that they] are dynamically updated with each edit of the plurality of edits step of Claim 1 is at least as much of a practical application as the sample claim cited in Example 37 above because similar to Example 37, the claim is reciting "a specific manner of automatically displaying [dynamically determined information] to the user based on usage which provides a specific improvement over prior systems, resulting in an improved user interface for electronic devices." MPEP, Example 37 at 2. For at least the above reasons, Claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-17, 19-21, and 23-24 are patent eligible at either Prong One or Prong Two of the Step 2A analysis (See Applicant Arguments/Remarks Pages 5-9).
In response to Applicant’s arguments, Examiner respectfully submits that unlike independent claim 1 in Example 37, independent claims 1, 10, 19 at issue include additional elements of “one or more processors”, “a memory”, “a user device”, “a graphical user interface (GUI)”, and “a first machine learning model”. However, the additional elements recite generic computer components such as a computer, computing devices, a server, and/or software programing that are recited a high-level of generality that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the additional elements evaluated individually and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they comprise or include limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application such as adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- See MPEP 2106.05(f). See details of Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 of claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-17, 19-21, and 23-24in the section above.
3. Applicant’s Argument: From Applicant Arguments/Remarks, Applicants submit that claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-17, 19-21, and 23-24 Are Patent Eligible Under USPTO Step 2B Because They Recite a Combination of Elements that Is Significantly More than an Abstract Idea Even if the claims are directed to an abstract idea, which Applicant does not concede, they are patent eligible because they recite an inventive concept that is significantly more than the alleged abstract idea. The Step 2B inquiry asks whether "the additional elements recited in the claims contribute an inventive concept." MPEP § 2106.05. Applicant notes that a relevant consideration for evaluating whether the claims provide an inventive concept is "adding a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field" … Applicant respectfully submits that the instant claims do involve more than performance of well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry. For example, independent Claim 1 recites at least "cause a user device to display a graphical user interface (GUI) that includes a plurality of editable fields," "monitor the plurality of editable fields for edits," and "dynamically determine a pre-approval based on the monitoring of the plurality of editable fields … In summary, as discussed above, the claims are not directed to an abstract idea and are thus directed to patent eligible subject matter at step one of Alice. Moreover, even if the claims are deemed to be directed to an abstract idea under step one of Alice, they recite an inventive concept such that the claims are directed to patent eligible subject matter under step two of Alice. Accordingly, for at least the reasons discussed, Applicant respectfully submits that Claims 1-5, 7-11 and 13-22 are directed to patent eligible subject matter. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the Examiner withdraw the patent eligibility rejections of Claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-17, 19-21, and 23-24 (See Applicant Arguments/Remarks Pages 9-11).
In response to Applicant’s arguments, Examiner respectfully submits that independent claims 1, 10, 19 at issue do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “one or more processors”, “a memory”, “a user device”, “a graphical user interface (GUI)”, and “a first machine learning model” evaluated individually and in combination do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, or are not more than merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more - See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Examiner also submits that new claim 21 is rejected under 35 USC § 101 for dependency on the rejected independent claim 10. See details of Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 of claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-17, 19-21, and 23-24 in the section above.
7. 35 U.S.C. §103 Rejections: Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-17, 19-21, and 23-24 that are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SINGH et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0321726), hereinafter, “SINGH”, in view of Dill (U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0274597), hereinafter, “Dill”, have been considered and they are persuasive (See Applicant Arguments/Remarks Pages 11-13). Examiner notes that the amended limitations “responsive to monitoring the plurality of editable fields for edits detect when afield has been edited by receiving for processing, for each input to the plurality of editable fields as a respective input occurs, a respective transmission from the user device that represents the respective input; and dynamically determine, using a first machine learning model to generate anear instant output, a pre-approval based on the monitoring of the plurality of editable fields by, for each edit of a plurality of edits to the plurality of fields” of amended independent claims 1, 10, and 19 are deemed not to be found in the prior art and updated search. Therefore, the Examiner hereby withdraws the 35 U.S.C. §103 Rejections of these claims and their respective dependent claims.
Relevant Prior Art
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Sankuratripati et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0397741) teach privacy approving system.
Diana (U.S. Pub. No 2021/0241371) teach system for dynamically adjusting a pre-approval letter.
Conclusion
9. 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.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Liz Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 272-5414. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday 8:00 A.M to 5:00 P.M.
11. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Gart, can be reached on (571) 272-3955. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
12. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Center system (visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (USA or CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/LIZ P NGUYEN/
Examiner, Art Unit 3696
/MATTHEW S GART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3696