DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 was filed in this application after a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, but before the filing of a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or the commencement of a civil action. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the appeal has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114 and prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on July 1, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant amended claims 1 and 11.
Applicant previously cancelled claims 9, 10, 19, and 20.
Claims 1-8, 11-18, and 21-24 are pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 1, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding 101 Rejections
Examiner initially rejected claims July 1, 2026 under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Applicant argued that the claims recite a practical application of the judicial exception. Applicant argued the claims present a technical improvement by considering feedback on offers not accepted. Examiner does not find this argument persuasive. Applicant’s claims do not improve technology; the underlying technology remains unaffected by the claims. Applicant is addressing a business problem (presenting financial offers to potential customers) with a business solution. Applicant is merely using existing technology (for its intended purpose) to implement the business solution. Any improvements lie in the abstract idea itself, not in underlying technology. It is not a technical solution to take into consideration why a customer didn’t accept an offer. This merely affects the underlying data that is being analyzed. The technology is unaffected by Applicant’s amendments. All Applicant is now doing is considering more/better data which does not amount to a practical application. The identified limitations do not amount to a practical application because they are a part of the abstract idea. Outside of the abstract idea there remains only the computer implementation of the abstract idea and extra-solution activity. Neither of these are indicative of a practical application. Applicant’s claims do not address a technical limitation/deficiency in the art and thus does not amount to a practical application.
Applicant further argued that they recite significantly more than an abstract idea. Examiner does not find this argument persuasive. Applicant merely alleges the claims amount to significantly more without any analysis as to how it meets this standard. Applicant’s above arguments regarding the claims amounting to a practical application are not persuasive for the claims amounting to significantly more. Applicant is not improving technology or meeting any other standard that demonstrates the claims amount to significantly more. Outside of the abstract idea, there is only the computer implementation of the abstract idea and extra-solution activity. Examiner provided evidence that these are well-understood, routine and conventional limitations. Examiner has provided the proper evidence as required by Berkheimer.
Examiner maintains this rejection.
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 1-8, 11-18, and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite the abstract idea which may be summarized as facilitating communication of proactive prequalification for financing to customers.
Step 1 Analysis
Applicants claims are directed to a process (claims 11-18, 23, and 24) and machine (claims 1-8, 21, and 22).
Step 2A, Prong 1 Analysis
Claims 1 and 11 recite the abstract idea/limitations of:
facilitating communication of proactive prequalification for financing to customers;
determining a set of eligible candidate customers for proactive loan prequalification;
performing credit determinations on the set of eligible candidate customers to identify a set of selected candidates to receive a proactive guarantee of financing;
communicating a qualification notification to at least some of the set of selected candidates indicating the proactive guarantee of financing;
and responsive to receiving an indication of a transaction associated with the qualification notification, and meeting parameters defined in association with the qualification notification, facilitating a loan to a customer initiating the transaction,
determine a relevance score of the qualification notification to each of the set of selected candidates via a relevance model that is updated,
wherein communicating the qualification notification is performed only to an individual among the set of selected candidates for which the relevance score exceeds a threshold, and
wherein the module is updated based on customer feedback and customer activity associated with accepted offers to update the relevance model employed.,
and wherein the module is trained by prompting customers to provide feedback on offers not accepted.
As drafted these limitations are a process that falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping of abstract ideas; but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites performance of the limitation as commercial/legal interactions, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. By reciting/claiming a certain method of organizing human activity, Applicant’s claims are directed to an abstract idea. The recited system components are just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations.
Step 2A, Prong 2 Analysis
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims only recites system components for implementing the abstract idea and extra-solution activity. The claims recite the additional limitations of processing circuitry, a machine learning module; and they are recited at a high level of generality. These system components amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. These limitations generally link the use of the judicial exception to a technological environment and are not indicative of integration into a practical application. The limitations of:
communicate a qualification notification
receiving an indication of a transaction
as drafted are insignificant extra-solution activity. These steps are mere data gathering and storing of information and do not qualify as a practical application of the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g). These additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims as a whole do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of processing circuitry, a machine learning module; amount to no more than mere components to implement the judicial exception using a generic computer components. For the same reason these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The limitations of:
communicate a qualification notification
receiving an indication of a transaction
as drafted are insignificant extra-solution activity. These steps are mere data gathering and storing and do not qualify as significantly more than the judicial exception as they are well-understood, routine, and conventional activity when clamed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). See MPEP 2106.05(g). See Applicant’s specification paragraphs [0017-0019], [0023-0029], [0041-0047] about implementation of the abstract idea using general purpose or special purpose computing devices; and MPEP 2106.05(f) where applying a computer as a tool is not indicative of significantly more. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus Applicant’s claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims Analysis
As for dependent claims 5-8, 10, 15-18, and 21-24 these claims recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea noted in independent claims 1 and 11. Therefore, claims 5-8, 10, 15-18, and 21-24 are considered ineligible subject matter for the reasons given above.
As for dependent claims 2-4, 9, and 12-14, these claims recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea noted in independent claims 1 and 11. In addition, the recite the additional elements of a client device, a prequalification dashboard, a machine learning module. The components are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. This is not indicative of a practical application or significantly more. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, claims 2-4, 9, and 12-14, are considered ineligible subject matter.
Thus, the dependent claims 2-8, 12-18, and 21-24 are not patent-eligible either.
Examiner Request
The Applicant is requested to indicate where in the specification there is support for amendments to claims should Applicant amend. The purpose of this is to reduce potential 35 USC 112(a) or 35 USC 112 first paragraph issues that can arise when claims are amended without support in the specification. The Examiner thanks the Applicant in advance.
Prior Art
There was no prior art rejection on file. Examiner has conducted an updated prior art search in view of the new claims and will not provide an art rejection at this time.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J WARDEN whose telephone number is (571)272-9602. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 9-6 CDT.
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, Bennett M Sigmond can be reached at 303-297-4411. 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.
/MICHAEL J. WARDEN/
Examiner
Art Unit 3694
/BENNETT M SIGMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3694
Prosecution Insights