DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This 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 1, 2, 8, 9, 10, 15, 16, and 21 have been amended.
Claims 1, 2, 4-10, 12-16, and 18-24 are currently pending.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claims 13 and 14 be found allowable, claims 19 and 20 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1, 2, 4-10, 12-16, and 18-24 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of US Patent No. 11,514,517 and US Patent No. 11,232,489. The instant invention covers the same invention but is broader than the patented invention. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are directed to the same subject matter, perform the equivalent functions and a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be free to practice one of the claimed inventions without infringing upon the other.
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, 2, 4-10, 12-16, and 18-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1, 2, 4-8, 21-24 are directed to a method. Claims 9, 10, 12-14, 19, 20 are directed to a system. Claims 15, 16, 18 are directed to a device. Thus, on their face they fall within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Step 2A prong 1:
Claims 1, 9, and 15 recite virtually identical claim limitations. Claim 1 will be used as representative. Each claims additional elements will be addressed individually. The following limitations, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, are merely descriptive of abstract concepts:
generating a first user interface (UI) that includes:
a graphical representation of a current credit score of the primary user; and
receive a user input corresponding to an adjusting of the current credit score to a future credit score, wherein, when rendered on a display, the first UI displays personally identifiable information (PII) of the primary user;
acquiring primary variables including the user input and account information of the primary user, wherein the user input is acquired from the primary user via the first UI, wherein the user input indicates selection of the future credit score, wherein the primary variables are stripped of PII of the primary user;
acquiring secondary variables that include at least a first credit score, a second credit score, and account information for one or more secondary users, wherein the secondary variables have been stripped of PII of the one or more secondary users;
generating the scenario model using the primary variables and the secondary variables as input features, wherein the scenario model is representative of instructions that, when implemented, modify the account information of the primary user resulting in modification of the current credit score to the future credit score;
generating a second UI depicting the instructions representing the (i) scenario model including the future credit score, one or more modifications to the account information of the primary user, (ii) an advertisement for a good or service associated with the future credit score, wherein the advertisement is dynamically determined based at least on the future credit score as selected via the user input, and (iii) receive second user input corresponding to authorization to perform at least a portion of instructions, wherein, when rendered on the display, the second UI displays the PII of the primary user;
receiving the second user input corresponding to the authorization to perform at least the portion of instructions via the second UI; and
in response to the second user input, causing automatic payment of an amount of an existing account, opening of a new account, or requesting extension of a credit limit of the existing account, thereby causing modification of the account information associated with the primary user
The following dependent claim limitations, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, are merely further descriptive of abstract concepts:
Claim 2, 10, 16:
further comprising: determining a target credit utilization rate of a credit of the primary user based on the current credit score, the future credit score, the account information of the primary user, and the secondary variables, wherein determining the target credit utilization rate of the credit of the primary user includes retrieving training data that includes the secondary variables and training a model that is configured to generate the instructions that, when implemented, modify the account information of the primary user.
Claim 4, 12:
wherein the instructions that, when implemented, modify the account information of the primary user include a type of action to be taken, an order in which at least a subset of the instructions is to be implemented, and a timing associated with one or more of the instructions.
Claim 5, 13, 18, 19:
wherein the second UI is configured to receive the second user input corresponding to the authorization.
Claim 6, 14, 20:
wherein receiving the second input includes detecting selection indicating the authorization.
Claim7:
wherein implementation of one or more of the instructions includes automated initiation of applying for a loan, and wherein disbursement of funds of the loan modify the account information of the primary user.
Claim 8:
further comprising: determining a target credit utilization rate of a credit of the primary user based on the current credit score, the future credit score, the account information of the primary user, and the secondary variables, wherein determining the target credit utilization rate of the credit of the primary user further includes: performing a correlation of account information of the primary user to determine a debt
utilization rate, wherein generating the instructions is based on the debt utilization rate.
Claim 21:
wherein providing the third-party with the authorization initiates implementation of one or more of the instructions.
Claim 22:
further comprising: wherein the secondary variables either indicate: (1) that alteration of a first variable within the account information of the primary user will have a greater impact in modifying the current credit score to the future credit score than a second variable, or (ii) a trend in user behavior that will impact modifying the current credit score to the future credit score.
Claim 23:
wherein the scenario model is a model that determines one or more of actions to be taken, an order in which the actions are to be effectuated, a timing in which the actions are to be effectuated.
Claim 24:
wherein the model generates the scenario model processing one resources separate form those of the primary user
The claims provide a manner of allowing a user to view their credit score and determine what they would like their credit score to be. Personally identifiable information of primary variables of the user and secondary variables of secondary users are removed and through data analysis of various credit related information, a model is used to determine recommended activities that will help the customer achieve the desired credit score. Finally, such activities are implemented on behalf of the user. Thus, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, the claims embody certain methods of organizing human activity. Specifically, such activity is in the form fundamental economic principles (analyzing credit information and implementing recommendations to improve a user’s credit score), commercial or legal interactions (including agreements to implement recommendations including opening accounts increasing credit limits, automating payments of existing accounts), and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (providing and implementing recommendations to improve a user’s credit score).
Step 2A prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claims recite the following additional elements: first user interface screen (claim 1, 9, 15); UI element configured to receive input (claim 1, 9, 15); display screen of network device (claim 1); machine learning model (claim 1, 2, 9, 10, 15, 24); second UI screen (claim 1, 5, 6, 9, 15); secondary UI elements configured to receive input (claim 1, 9, 15); second UI element configured to receive input (claim 5, 13, 19); actionable element that is selectable for providing input (claim 6, 14, 20); one or more processors and one or more logic modules stored within a non-transitory storage medium (claim 9); one or more processors and memory communicatively coupled to the one or more processors, the memory comprising machine readable instructions (claim 15); software based model (claim 23); network device (claim 24); icon (claims 1, 9, 15);
The one or more processors and one or more logic modules stored within a non-transitory storage medium, one or more processors and memory communicatively coupled to the one or more processors, the memory comprising machine readable instructions, and network device are recited at a high level of generality and amount to mere instructions to “apply it” (the abstract idea) using generic computing devices (See spec [0065], [0140], [0141], [0143], [0146]). The computing devices are merely used to send and receive data (acquiring, receiving, providing) and process data (generating, causing, determining, modify, performing). Nothing in the claims improves upon computer technology or a technical field (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The first user interface screen, UI element configured to receive input, display screen of network device, second UI screen, secondary UI elements configured to receive input, second UI element configured to receive input, actionable element that is selectable for providing input, and icon merely provide a general link to practicing the abstract idea in a computing environment. The claims merely recite a series of generic interface elements used for displaying, inputting, and making selections. Nothing in the claims improves interface technology or a technical field (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The scenario model being a “software based model” merely provides a general link to practicing the abstract idea in a computing environment. Nothing in the claims recites any meaningful limitations with regard to the model being software based. It appears to be little more than generic computer implementation of the model. Nothing in the claims improves upon software modeling technology or a technical field (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The use of machine learning is recited at a high level of generality. The high level of use of machine learning does not improve upon machine learning technology or a technical field. As a result, the use of machine learning does not go beyond the apply it level of implementation (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Similarly, as above with regard to practical application, the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, do not provide an inventive concept as they merely provide generic computing components used as a tool to implement the abstract idea and provide a general link to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e. on a computer).
As a result, the claims are not patent eligible.
With regard to prior art:
The examiner was unable to find a reasonable combination of references that teach each and every limitation in the context of the claimed invention.
Crawford et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0046223 A1) is considered the closest prior art. Crawford generally teaches explaining credit scores, for example in connection with a credit score explanation service, in which consumers can identify the sources of information used to establish their credit score, supply their credit report and credit score information in connection with their application for credit-related products and services, such as loans, and determine the effect on their credit score and cost for credit-related products and services based upon various hypothetical changes in their credit behavior. It provides a Web site containing an array of informative resources including for-pay services and extranet functions to serve consumers and traditional players in the financial services industry, including financial counselors, mortgage brokers, direct lenders, large national credit issuers, and third-party credit report re-sellers, plus information seekers such as the press, consumer groups, and government agencies. A primary focus is to educate consumers, consumer groups, and the consumer press by offering them access to the exceptionally high-quality information, both general and personal, about the practices of collection, storing, reporting, and evaluating consumer credit data.
Rohn et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0228820 A1) calculates a credit score associated with the consumer based on the received credit information and further based on a credit score calculation algorithm. The system constructs a credit score scenario user interface. The system maintains a plurality of credit score simulation scenarios and calculates a plurality of simulated credit scores associated with respective credit score simulation scenarios. Each simulated credit score is calculated based on the credit score calculation algorithm and further based on the received credit information with modifications in accordance with the respective credit score simulation scenario. The system transmits first user interface data configured to cause the display of a user interface including a listing of information associated with respective credit score simulation scenarios, in conjunction with the simulated credit scores for respective credit score simulation scenarios. The system also constructs a credit score simulation control interface. The system maintains a plurality of credit score simulation parameters and transmits second user interface data configured to cause the display of a user interface comprising a graphical indication of the calculated credit score. The second user interface data further comprises a plurality of sliders, each slider being associated with a credit score simulation parameter, each slider being divided into a plurality of segments that are colored to graphically indicate the likely effect of repositioning the slider within the respective segment. The system also transmits executable code in association with the second user interface data, The executable code is configured to update in real time, in response to the user repositioning one or more of the sliders, the graphical indication of the calculated credit score, based on a recalculation of the credit score using at least parameters determined from the one or more repositioned sliders. The results of applying the score simulation model at block 303 may include one or more simulated credit scores and possibly other information, which may include, for example, recommendations for possible actions to be taken, ranges of credit scores, possible parameters for adjustment, and so on.
Celano et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0112668 A1) provides a credit behavior inference model that is able to take the complex information within a consumer credit report and provide it in a format that a consumer may comprehend and act upon. It also allows the model to disclose to the consumer what past behaviors have influenced their credit score and what new behaviors need to be employed to avoid negative impacts upon their credit and/or improve their credit.
Gao et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0365356 A1) teaches identifying segments of a population whose credit score is likely to change materially in the near future, so that offerings/underwriting strategies can be tailored to that population based not only on their current credit score but also where such score is likely to be headed. Furthermore, the current subject matter can be used to estimate dates at which credit scores can be generated for individuals with incomplete credit histories. Such calculation include credit utilization and uses predictive models including Neural networks.
Brown (US Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0036884 A1) teaches removing personally identifiable information from transaction data before using it in predictive modeling.
Lin (US Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0024462) teaches a selectable icon that provides advertisements based on the user’s credit score.
Response to Arguments
The examiner has considered and finds persuasive applicant’s arguments regarding rejections under 35 USC 112. As a result, such rejections have been withdrawn.
The examiner has considered but does not find persuasive applicant’s arguments regarding rejections under 35 USC 101.
The added limitation regarding the use of an icon is not found persuasive. The icon is merely a general link to a particular technological environment. It merely allows for a user to make a selection in a computing environment. Nothing in the claims improves icons, technology, or a technical field. The determination of which goods and services are available is part of the abstract idea. The icon merely represents the display of this information and allows the user to make a selection in a computing environment. Assisting the user by displaying how the future credit score may relate to good and services is merely displaying information to the user and part of the abstract idea.
The examiner finds that the claims clearly encompass abstract ideas. The claims provide a manner of allowing a user to view their credit score and determine what they would like their credit score to be. Personally identifiable information of primary variables of the user and secondary variables of secondary users are removed and through data analysis of various credit related information, a model is used to determine recommended activities that will help the customer achieve the desired credit score. Finally, such activities are implemented on behalf of the user. Thus, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, the claims embody certain methods of organizing human activity. Specifically, such activity is in the form fundamental economic principles (analyzing credit information and implementing recommendations to improve a user’s credit score), commercial or legal interactions (including agreements to implement recommendations including opening accounts increasing credit limits, automating payments of existing accounts), and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (providing and implementing recommendations to improve a user’s credit score).
As a result, such rejections have been maintained.
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 CHRISTOPHER STROUD whose telephone number is (571)272-7930. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri. 9AM-5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Waseem Ashraff can be reached at (571) 270-3948. 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.
CHRISTOPHER STROUD
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3621B
/CHRISTOPHER STROUD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621