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 .
RCE Acknowledgement
Applicant’s Request for Continued Examination (RCE) dated 09/22/2025 under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office Action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114, and the Applicant's RCE submission filed on 22 SEPTEMBER 2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in this instant application per RCE claim amendments and remarks filed on 09/22/2025, wherein only Claim 1 has been amended. Claim 1 is an independent claim reciting a personal loan-lending system claim. Claims 2-20 are dependent system claims.
This Office Action is a non-final rejection in response to RCE claim amendments and remarks filed by the Applicant on 22 SEPTEMBER 2025 for its original application of the same date that is titled: “Person Loan-Lending System and Methods Thereof”.
Accordingly, amended Claims 1-20 are now being rejected herein.
Claim Objections
NOTE: Examiner notes that these Claim Objections have been Updated from the previous Office Action, because the Applicant has Neither amended Claim 1 (that had been objected to) Nor addressed them in their Remarks of 09/22/2025.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, as amended in RCE on 09/22/2025, recites two/2 acronyms “GUI” and “API”, without their full form given in Claim 1, where they have been recited for the first time and their full-form needs to be added when recited for the first time (in Claim 1). Examiner notes that 09/22 RCE amendments have added “AI” and its full-form as “artificial intelligence” in Claim 1, line 28 at the first time it is used. Examiner suggests adding the full form of said acronyms in amended Claim 1; which has been done for “GUI” as “graphical user interface” in Specification’s para [0009], and for “API” as “application programming interface” in para [0006] of the Specification.
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.
(NOTE: Latest ‘amendments to the claims’ filed by the Applicant in the RCE on 09/22/2012 are shown as bold and underlined additions, and all deletions may not be shown, or may not be underlined when stricken through. Underlined amendments to the claims that are shown below are from previously submitted claim amendments by the Applicant.)
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more, wherein Claim 1 is the only independent system claim.
Exemplary Analysis.
Claim 1: Ineligible.
The claim recites a series of steps. The claim is directed to a system operable by way of a set of executable instructions stored in non-transient machine-readable media reciting a series of steps (as in a method claim), which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1: -- YES).
The claim is analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. The claim recites the limitations of instantiating a system for originating personal loans and for servicing the personal loans; a lending platform configured to gather and process lending-related information for originating loans, wherein the loans comprise unsecured loans and secured loans; allow a representative of the lender to review borrower information in one or more digital mortgage applications of one or more borrowers wherein the digital application exists in an incomplete state in a database of the one or more databases, and wherein borrower-related information is utilized by the personal loan-originating system for depositing personal-loan funds; and providing third-party integration support for the originating or the servicing of the personal loans. These limitations, as drafted, are steps of a system stored in non-transient machine-readable media (akin to a method) that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations via steps of a method of organizing human activity such as fundamental economic principles or practices, such as mitigating risk in the process of lending to borrowers and/or commercial interactions, such as lending unsecured loans by collecting and analyzing information available for secured loans (such as mortgages) and other loan of banking information. Therefore, the claims recite a judicial exception. These limitations fall under the “certain methods of organizing human activity” group (Step 2A1-YES).
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if it is integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements of: executing on one or more server hosts by at least an equal number of processors and using GUIS and APIs configured for transferring loan-related information to third parties; the borrower graphical user interface configured to exist in a borrower-recognizable state, wherein the borrower interface is a step for moving to a next section of the digital application; a web application configured to run at least in part from a primary memory of a personal computer and present a lender GUI within a web browser on a display of the personal computer, the lender GUI configured to ………… one or more dedicated server hosts configured to support a personal loan-originating application stack and a personal loan-servicing application stack; one or more processors communicatively coupled to the one or more server hosts and a memory communicatively coupled to the one or more processors; and wherein the third party integration including at least APIs for one or more of a fraud-detecting provider API, a credit bureau API, and an employment-verification provider API, and wherein the APIs of the third party integration module are then configured to receive third-party loan-related verification information from the fraud-detecting provider API, the credit bureau API, and the employment-verification provider API; and an artificial intelligence (AI) module comprising at least one neural network trained on datasets ………… wherein the AI module generates an underwriting output used by the lending platform to originate personal loans. These elements are considered data collection or data gathering steps, thus not meaningfully integrating the judicial exception into an abstract idea. The server hosts, processors, GUIs, stacks and APIs plus AI module in these steps are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as generic processors performing generic computer functions of processing data (executing on one or more server hosts by at least an equal number of processors, and using GUIs, stacks and APIs configured for transferring loan-related information to third parties). These generic server hosts, processors, GUIs and APIs and AI module are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer &/or computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A2-NO).
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if there are additional elements in this claim that individually, or as an ordered combination, to include the latest RCE claim amendments, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas (whether claim provides inventive concept). As discussed with respect to Step 2A2 above, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer and/or components. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer components over a network cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Because the additional elements described in the step above were considered to be extra-solution activities in Step 2A, they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field. The disclosure does not provide any indication that the devices (processors) are anything other than generic processors and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions (MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II)) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Accordingly, a conclusion that the aforementioned extra-solution elements are well-understood, routine and conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer option 2, respectively.
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, to include the latest RCE claim amendments, the additional elements do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea (Step 2B: NO), and the claim is not patent eligible.
Furthermore, dependent claims further recite GUI (graphical user interface), OCR (optical character recognition) and ACH (automated clearing house), plus automatic underwriting module, etc.; and all these additional elements are, also similarly, mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer and/or components. Therefore, these dependent claims do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea, and these claims are not patent eligible.
The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of the invention including system Claim 1. Furthermore, dependent system claims 2-20 do not resolve the issues raised in the independent Claim 1, and are rejected as ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. 101 based upon the same analysis.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's RCE remarks and claim amendments dated 22 SEPTEMBER 2025 with respect to the rejection of amended Claims 1-20 have been carefully considered, but they are not persuasive and do not put these amended claims in a condition ready for Allowance. Thus, the rejection of amended Claims 1-20, as described above, is being maintained herein only under 35 USC §101 with some modifications in this Office Action, where needed to provide clarification in response to the Applicant’s claim amendments and remarks.
In response to the Applicant’s latest RCE arguments of 09/22/2025 against the rejection under 35 USC §101, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Also, Examiner clarifies that the instant application is nothing more than an improvement of an abstract idea, wherein using technology/ computers to execute an abstract idea is at most an improvement to the abstract idea. Furthermore, Examiner notes that amendments of 09/22 in Claim 1 fall under “extra-solution activities” as described above in para (7.).
In further response to the Applicant’s latest RCE arguments of 09/22/2025 against the rejection under 35 USC §101, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Also, the Applicant has argued on 09/22 --- {“Furthermore, the claim integrates practical application that improves computer functionality. For example, the borrower GUI records and presents borrower actions as discrete steps, advancing completion of applications. The lender GUI allows real-time access to incomplete digital applications, requiring database interaction and dynamic presentation through a web application stack. These features, along with the division of loan-originating and loan-servicing application stacks across server hosts, demonstrate improvements in how computer systems are used to originate and service loans. Finally, the claimed arrangement materially improves the speed, reliability, and security of digital loan processing.”}; which do not overcome 101 rejection. Examiner notes that, per google search of history of use of borrower GUI and lender GUI (copy attached herewith as Appendix), the borrower and lender GUIs are “general categories of GUIs” starting with loan origination software in 1990s; followed by creation of “borrower-facing interfaces for accessing account information” in 2000s; and start of “digital-first lending platforms like Lending Club” particularly after 2010 and “focusing heavily on the borrower's "user experience" (UX)”; and recently in 2020s, developments include highly customizable GUIs and the integration of AI to assist in the loan process.
Additionally, the Applicant’s latest RCE amendments of 09/22/2025 by adding “artificial intelligence (AI) module” limitations to overcome the rejection under 35 USC §101, and Examiner respectfully disagrees and does not overcome 101 rejection. In response, Examiner notes that limitations that these are well-known in this art field per a google search of “when was AI used in borrower GUI and lender GUI” (see a copy attached in Appendix), it describes that, in lender GUI, rules-based automation started in 1990s with use of Desktop Underwriter® and Loan Product Advisor®; followed by machine learning (ML) and advanced analytics in 2000s-2010s; start of generative AI in 2020s and launch of GuildGPT in 2024; AND the attached google search as Appendix further describes that, in borrower GUIs, online banking and personalization was done in 2010s that launched tools like Mint.com in 2006; followed by automated application and chatbots in late 2010s-2020s; and launch of direct AI integration for analysis in 2020s and AI platform RadCred was launched in mid-2025.
NOTE: Examiner notes that the previous Responses to Arguments from previous Office Action/s are incorporated herein as described below for a complete record of the 101 rejection, some of which may be similar to and repeated as arguments on 09/22/2025.
In further response to the Applicant’s arguments of 06/07/2025 against the rejection under 35 USC 101 about “First Prong” OR “Prong One”, and Examiner respectfully disagrees. Also, upon reviewing the Specification and the claim as whole, independent Claim 1 is at least directed to one of the ineligible “certain methods of organizing human activity” that include “fundamental economic principles or practices” (based on at least ‘a system for originating personal loans and for servicing the personal loans’) and “commercial or legal interactions” (based on at least ‘third party integration’) as well as “managing personal behavior or relationships” (based on at least ‘borrower’s interactions with the digital application’). Claim 1 describes a steps for a system for a personal loan-lending system configured for: originating personal loans and servicing the personal loans, and third-party integration supporting the originating or the servicing of the personal loans (see Abstract). Thus, like the concept of intermediated settlement in Alice, and the concept of hedging in Bilski, the concept of “operable for a personal loan lending system configured for: originating personal loans and servicing the personal loans” recited in exemplary Claim 1 “is a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in our system of commerce.” Thus, it is clear that independent Claim 1 recites fundamental economic practices and/or commercial transactions that, under the Revised Guidance, fall under the category of abstract ideas related to “certain methods of organizing human activity.” 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Accordingly, independent Claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
In further response to the Applicant’s latest arguments of 06/07/2025 against the rejection under 35 USC 101 about “Second Prong” OR “Prong Two”, and Examiner respectfully disagrees. Also, under the 2019 PEG, Step 2A, prong two, integration into a practical application requires an additional element(s) or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application are those that are 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).
In response to the Applicant’s arguments of 06/07/2025, Examiner notes that if the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, for Step 2B we must “look with more specificity at what the claim elements add, in order to determine ‘whether they identify an “inventive concept” in the application of the ineligible subject matter’ to which the claim is directed.” Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). We look to see whether there are any “additional features” in the claims that constitute an “inventive concept,” thereby rendering the claims eligible for patenting even if they are directed to an abstract idea. Alice, 573 U.S. at 221.
Examiner further notes that, in response to Applicant’s arguments for Step 2A, the claims listing of 06/07 as a whole including the claim amendments of 06/07/2025, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself . The processor limitations in the instant application do not add significantly more, because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. A generic recitation of a processor performing its generic computer functions does not make the claims less abstract. Also, the use of a particular machine and transformation to a different state or thing are not relevant to the instant application.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon, listed in Form 892, that is considered pertinent to the Applicant's disclosure and review for not traversing already issued patents and/or claimed inventions by the claims of the current invention of the Applicant. Examiner notes that Form 892 contains more references than those cited in the rejection above under 35 USC 103, and that all the references cited on said Form 892 are relevant to this application and form a part of the body of prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Sanjeev Malhotra whose telephone number is (571) 272-7292. The Examiner can normally be reached during Monday-Friday between
8:30-17:00 hours on a Flexible schedule.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, the Applicant is encouraged to contact the Examiner directly.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abhishek Vyas, can be reached on (571) 270-1836. The facsimile/fax phone number for the organization, where this application or proceeding is assigned, is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Electronic Communications
Prior to initiating the first e-mail correspondence with an Examiner, Applicant is responsible for filing a written statement with the USPTO in accordance with MPEP §502.03(II). All received e-mail messages including e-mail attachments shall be placed into this application’s record. The Examiner’s e-mail address is provided below at the end of this Office Action.
/S.M./
Examiner, Art Unit 3691
sanjeev.malhotra@uspto.gov
/ABHISHEK VYAS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3691