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 .
The following is a final office action in response to the amendment filed 29 June 2026.
Applicant amendments to Claims 1 and 11 have been received and are acknowledged. Claims 6, 7, 16 and 17.
Examiner notes that no priority claims have been filed in the instant application. As such, there is no benefit for priority prior to the filing date of 6/26/2023.
Claims 1-5, 8-15 and 18-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the previous rejections under 35 USC 101 – which were affirmed by in the PTAB decision of 4/28/2026- Applicant has amended the claims to overcome the rejection. Applicant argues: The newly amended claims address PTAB comments (pg. 17) regarding a lack of “technical details of how they improved computers or other technology. Specifically Applicant argues “…by providing the further details of how the determination is made, once again, the technical improvement which relates to the ability to identify correctable data issues in deficient data that is received simultaneously from a plurality of sources is evident precisely from that which is claimed….the claimed invention now more clearly articulates a series of elements that integrate the operations recited into a practical application that imposes meaningful limits on the arena in which such claims are applicable and improves a technological area (namely identifying deficient data and correcting it automatically)…” (Applicant’s response, 8-9).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The “applying” of a “scoring algorithm’ to process data (e.g. correct deficient data) is not an improvement to a computer or other technology. At most this an improvement to an abstract idea which addresses a business challenge. In other words, as rejected below the instant recited claims are ‘apply – it’ (MPEP 2106.05 (f)).
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 1-5, 8-15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, (1) it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, (2a) it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so (2b), it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices; certain methods of organizing human activities; an idea itself; and mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. ____ (2014).
The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. In the instant case, the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
(1) In the instant case, the claims are directed towards a method, non-transitory computer readable medium, and the system of providing personalized prequalification of a customer. In the instant case, Claims 1-5 and 8-10 are directed to a process. Claims 11-15 and 18-20 are directed to a system. (See PTAB decision, pg. 5)
(2a) Prong 1: Providing prequalification for financing is categorized in/akin to the abstract idea subject matter grouping of: methods of organizing human activity, [organizing human activity (commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)]. As such, the claims include an abstract idea. (See PTAB decision, 5-6, citing Specification [1-4])
The specific limitations of the invention are (a) identified to encompass the abstract idea include:
(Currently amended) A method for providing personalized prequalification of a customer, the method comprising:
… identification information of the user associated with user activity on a … of a merchant or lender simultaneously with corresponding identification information for a plurality of other users;
conducting a financing program prequalification determination for the user and the plurality of other users based on the identification information and a set of prequalification criteria without any request from the user for financing;
… an indication that the user is not prequalified based on the financing program prequalification determination;
providing instructions for generation of a prequalification engagement notification at a … of a user … associated with the user responsive to the indication; and
responsive to selection of the prequalification engagement notification, providing one or more guidance instructions for generation at the … of the user … for the user to provide prequalification requirement data for a subsequent performance of the financing program prequalification determination,
wherein providing the instructions for generation of the prequalification engagement notification further comprises applying information associated with an account of the customer user and simultaneously also to accounts associated with the plurality of other users to a structured information matrix to determine fields corresponding to one or more reasons the user and at least some of the plurality of other users were was not prequalified, and applying a scoring … to combinations of criteria that cause negative prequalification results to determine determining whether the one or more reasons the user and the at least some of the plurality of other users were not prequalified are curable by engagement with the user and the plurality of other users prior to providing the instructions for generation of the prequalification engagement notification,
wherein the one or more guidance instructions … …consoles or data entry fields associated with curing the one or more reasons, and
wherein the… maintained via …e that performs computations associated with determining the fields corresponding to the one or more reasons.
11. (Currently amended) An … for providing personalized prequalification of a customer, the …y configured to:
…dentification information of the user associated with user activity on a … of a merchant or lender simultaneously with corresponding identification information for a plurality of other users;
conduct a financing program prequalification determination for the user and the plurality of other users based on the identification information and a set of prequalification criteria without any request from the user for financing;
… an indication that the user is not prequalified based on the financing program prequalification determination;
provide instructions for generation of a prequalification engagement notification at a …of a user …associated with the user responsive to the indication; and
responsive to selection of the prequalification engagement notification, provide one or more guidance instructions for generation at the … of the user … for the user to provide prequalification requirement data for a subsequent performance of the financing program prequalification determination,
wherein providing the instructions for generation of the prequalification engagement notification further comprises applying information associated with an account of the customer user and simultaneously also to accounts associated with the plurality of other users to a structured information matrix to determine fields corresponding to one or more reasons the user and at least some of the plurality of other users were was not prequalified, and applying a scoring … to combinations of criteria that cause negative prequalification results to determine determining whether the one or more reasons the user and the at least some of the plurality of other users were not prequalified are curable by engagement with the user and the plurality of other users prior to providing the instructions for generation of the prequalification engagement notification,
wherein the one or more guidance instructions … …or data entry fields associated with curing the one or more reasons, and
wherein the … is maintained … that performs computations associated with determining the fields corresponding to the one or more reasons.
As stated above, this abstract idea falls into the (b) subject matter grouping of: methods of organizing human activity .
Prong 2: When considered individually and in combination, the instant claims are do not integrate the exception into a practical application because the steps of conducting… providing… providing.. applying… applying…performs computations.. .- do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception (i.e. the abstract idea).
The instant recited claims including additional elements (i.e. …receiving… providing/transmitting… providing/transmitting…) do not improve the functioning of the computer or improve another technology or technical field nor do they recite meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The limitations merely recite: “apply it” (or an equivalent) or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea or merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05 (f) and (g))
(2b) In the instant case, Claims 1-5 and 8-10 are directed to a process. Claims 11-15 and 18-20 are directed to a system/apparatus.
Additionally, the claims (independent and dependent) do not include additional elements that individually or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception of abstract idea (i.e. provide an inventive concept). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of: (website, display, device, display, device, algorithm, machine learning module; structured information matrix, processing circuitry…… ) merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea or merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception or merely uses generic computing elements to perform well known, routine, and conventional functions. (MPEP 2106.05 (d), (f) and (g)) (Specification, [18] module …hardware… firmware … or a combination of hardware and software….[21-22] a computing device (e.g., a computer, a server, a network access terminal, a personal digital assistant (PDA), radio equipment, cellular phone, smart phone, or the like) capable of communication with a network; [23-24] network; device; [25-26] device; client application; API; platform; web interface; web pages; [29-33] platform…programs… [34-39] apparatus… platform… processing circuitry…non-transitory storage…[40] processor…[47] machine learning module… )
The dependent claims have also been examined and do not correct the deficiencies of the independent claims.
It is noted that claim (2-5, 8-10, 12-15, 18-20) introduces the additional elements of wherein clauses further defining steps/elements: …receiving…(Claims 2 and 12); …conducting… (Claims 3 and 13); …guidance instructions…(Claim 4 and 5; 14 and 15)…time bounded prequalification status.. (Claims 9 and 10; 19 and 20) and the step of informing … (Claim 8 and 18) This element is not a practical application of the judicial exception because these limitations merely recite: “apply it” (or an equivalent) or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea or merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05 (f) and (g)) Further these limitations taken alone or in combination with the abstract do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea alone because these elements amount to mere use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea or merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception or merely uses generic computing elements to perform well known, routine, and conventional functions. (See MPEP 2106.05 (d), (f) and (g)) (MPEP 2106.05 (d), (f) and (g)) (Specification, [18] module …hardware… firmware … or a combination of hardware and software….[21-22] a computing device (e.g., a computer, a server, a network access terminal, a personal digital assistant (PDA), radio equipment, cellular phone, smart phone, or the like) capable of communication with a network; [23-24] network; device; [25-26] device; client application; API; platform; web interface; web pages; [29-33] platform…programs… [34-39] apparatus… platform… processing circuitry…non-transitory storage…[40] processor…[47] machine learning module… )
Therefore, claims 1-5, 8-15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 4-5, 8-11, 14-15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200349642 A1 Kumar et al. hereinafter referred to as Kumar in view of US 20220284506 A1 Follmer hereinafter referred to as Follmer.
Claims 1 and 11
Kumar discloses a method and apparatus for providing personalized prequalification of a customer, the method comprising:
receiving identification information of the user associated with user activity on a website of a merchant or lender simultaneously with corresponding identification information for a plurality of other users; (See at least Kumar, Fig. 1a Credit bureau device; receive information… pre-qualification platform; [2] shopping platform, user… prequalified…[23] …information and/or additional financial data associated with other users … )
conducting a financing program prequalification determination for the user and the plurality of other users based on the identification information and a set of prequalification criteria….; (See at least Kumar, Fig. 1a Credit bureau device; receive information… pre-qualification platform; [2] shopping platform, user… prequalified…[11] consumer submits a request to pre-qualify… the lender…. [12] pre-qualification platform… configure a user interface… [23] …information and/or additional financial data associated with other users … )
receiving an indication that the user is not prequalified based on the financing program prequalification determination; (See at least Kumar, Fig. 1a Credit bureau device; receive information… pre-qualification platform; [2] shopping platform, user… prequalified…[12-13] pre-qualification platform… configure a user interface…enable or disable one or more actions… based on the pre-qualification status… [23] …information and/or additional financial data associated with other users … )
providing instructions for generation of a prequalification engagement notification at a display of a user device associated with the user responsive to the indication; and (See at least Kumar, Fig. 1a Credit bureau device; receive information… pre-qualification platform; [2] shopping platform, user… prequalified…[12-13] pre-qualification platform… configure a user interface…enable or disable one or more actions… based on the pre-qualification status… [23] …information and/or additional financial data associated with other users … )
responsive to selection of the prequalification engagement notification, providing one or more guidance instructions for generation at the display of the user device for the user to provide prequalification requirement data for a subsequent performance of the financing program prequalification determination, (See at least Kumar, Fig. 1a Credit bureau device; receive information… pre-qualification platform; [2] shopping platform, user… prequalified…[12-13] pre-qualification platform… configure a user interface…enable or disable one or more actions… based on the pre-qualification status… [23] …information and/or additional financial data associated with other users … )
wherein providing the instructions for generation of the prequalification engagement notification further comprises applying information associated with an account of the user and simultaneously also to accounts associated with the plurality of other users to a structured information matrix to determine fields corresponding to one or more reasons the user and at least some of the plurality of other users were applying a scoring algorithm …. to determinethe user and the at least some of the plurality of other users were not prequalified are curable by engagement with the user and the plurality of other users prior to providing the instructions for generation of the prequalification engagement notification, (See at least Kumar, Fig. 1b-1c, Fig. 4, [41] …user does not pre-qualify… enable an action to simulate one or more changes… enable certain action to help the user… wherein the simulation reads on applying a scoring algorithm…)
wherein the one or more guidance instructions display control consoles or data entry fields associated with curing the one or more reasons, and (See at least Kumar, Fig. 1b-1c, Fig. 4, [41] …user does not pre-qualify… enable tan action to simulate one or more changes… enable certain action to help the user…)
….
Kumar does not directly disclose the following; however, Follmer teaches:
…. without any request from the user for financing …(See at least Follmer, [7] request… by a merchant… )
…. applying a scoring algorithm to combinations of criteria that cause negative prequalification results…(See at least Follmer, Fig. 2 credit/loan request… lender server.. train machine learning model, analyze credit request [20] algorithms)
wherein the structured information matrix is maintained via a machine learning module that performs computations associated with determining the fields corresponding to the one or more reasons. (See at least Follmer, Fig. 2 credit/loan request… lender server.. train machine learning model, analyze credit request ; Fig. 3 updated parameters [20] algorithms [22] databases)
Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported in KSR International Co. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550US___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), that merely applying a known technique to a known method, yield predictable results, render the claimed invention obvious over such combination. In the instant case, Kumar discloses a method and apparatus of pre-qualification platform including determining financing options if any. Follmer is merely another method and system of determining whether to extend credit/financing using machine learning /artificial intelligence. One of ordinary skill in the art would clearly recognize that this combination would lead to a predictable result (i.e. a method and apparatus of pre-qualification platform including determining financing options if any using machine learning /artificial intelligence). As such the claimed invention is obvious over Kumar / Follmer.
Claims 4 and 14
Kumar and Follmer disclose the invention as claimed above in Claims 1 and 11.
Kumar further discloses:
wherein the one or more guidance instructions each relate to a respective criterion of the set of prequalification criteria, and wherein the one or more guidance instructions each provide a corresponding data entry field for the user to provide the respective criterion. (See at least Kumar, Fig. 1a Credit bureau device; receive information… pre-qualification platform; [2] shopping platform, user… prequalified…[12-13] pre-qualification platform… configure a user interface…enable or disable one or more actions… based on the pre-qualification status… [23] …information and/or additional financial data associated with other users … )
Claims 5 and 15
Kumar and Follmer disclose the invention as claimed above in Claims 4 and 14.
Kumar further discloses:
wherein at least one of the one or more guidance instructions provides a link to enable the user to pay off a loan or make a loan payment for a prior loan associated with an account of the user associated with the website of the merchant or the lender. (See at least Kumar, Fig. 1a Credit bureau device; receive information… pre-qualification platform; phone interface [2] shopping platform, user… prequalified…[12-13] pre-qualification platform… configure a user interface…enable or disable one or more actions… based on the pre-qualification status… [23] …information and/or additional financial data associated with other users … )
Claims 8 and 18
Kumar and Follmer disclose the invention as claimed above in Claims 1 and 11.
Kumar further discloses:
responsive to the user passing the subsequent performance of the financing program prequalification determination, informing the user of a time bounded prequalification status. (See at least Kumar, Fig. 1a Credit bureau device; receive information… pre-qualification platform; 1b… see financing terms including time… )
Claims 9 and 19
Kumar and Follmer disclose the invention as claimed above in Claims 8 and 18.
Kumar further discloses:
wherein the time bounded prequalification status is a universal status defining a prequalification amount valid with any merchant. (See at least Kumar, Fig. 1a Credit bureau device; receive information… pre-qualification platform; 1b… see financing terms including time…[1] pre-qualification… (e.g. bank, a credit union… a mortgage company, a vehicle financing company , a credit card company and/or the like)… )
Claims 10 and 20
Kumar and Follmer disclose the invention as claimed above in Claims 8 and 18.
Kumar further discloses:
wherein the time bound prequalification status is a merchant-specific status defining a prequalification amount valid with a specifically identified merchant or payment method. (See at least Kumar, Fig. 1a Credit bureau device; receive information… pre-qualification platform; 1b… see financing terms including time… [1] pre-qualification… (e.g. bank, a credit union… a mortgage company, a vehicle financing company , a credit card company and/or the like)…) )
Claims 2, 3, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar in view of Follmer further in view of US 20160180428 A1, Cain et al. hereinafter referred to as Cain.
Claims 2 and 12
Kumar and Follmer disclose the invention as claimed above in Claims 1 and 11.
Kumar does not directly disclose the following; however, Cain teaches:
wherein receiving the identification information comprises receiving login information to an account of the user associated with the website of the merchant or the lender. (See at least Cain, [43] login credentials)
Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported in KSR International Co. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550US___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), that merely applying a known technique to a known method, yield predictable results, render the claimed invention obvious over such combination. In the instant case, Kumar discloses a method and apparatus of pre-qualification platform including determining financing options if any. Follmer is merely another method and system of determining whether to extend credit/financing using machine learning /artificial intelligence. Cain teaches a method and system for generating vehicle history reports and pre-approved financing/prequalification including a login feature. One of ordinary skill in the art would clearly recognize that this combination would lead to a predictable result (i.e. a method and apparatus of pre-qualification platform including determining financing options if any using machine learning /artificial intelligence including a login feature.). As such the claimed invention is obvious over Kumar / Follmer/Cain.
Claims 3 and 13
Kumar, Follmer and Cain disclose the invention as claimed above in Claims 2 and 12.
Kumar further discloses:
wherein conducting the financing program prequalification determination is only performed in response to a determination that the user has previously authorized the merchant or lender to perform a financing program qualification check. (See at least Kumar; [44] User device… previously stored information..)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20160012528 A1, method for enabling organizations to offer financing to a customer
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHA PUTTAIA H whose telephone number is (571)270-1352. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am to 5:30 pm.
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, Abhishek Vyas can be reached on 571-270-1836. 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.
/ASHA PUTTAIA H/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691
Prosecution Insights