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 .
Acknowledgements
The examiner for this application has changed. Please indicate Examiner Hai Tran as the examiner of record in all future correspondences.
This is the Final Office Action in response to the Amendment filed on March 09, 2026, for Application No. 18/235,207, title: “Systems And Methods For Credit Offers, Private Label Prequalification For Lenders, And Account Opening”.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 were pending. By the 03/09/2026 Amendment, claims 1 and 11 have been amended, no claim has been added or cancelled. Accordingly claims 1-20 are currently pending in this Application and have been examined.
Priority
This Application was filed on 08/17/2023 and has a US Provisional Application No. 63/353,206, filed on 06/17/2022. For the purpose of examination, the 06/17/2022 is considered to be the effective filing date.
Drawings
The drawings (Figures 3-6) are not of sufficient quality to permit examination. Accordingly, replacement drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to this Office action. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action.
Figures 3-6 are not of sufficient quality for examination. Applicant is required to submit new drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.81 in response to this Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites: A system … cause the device to:
provide end-to-end account opening; and
provide the deployment of a lending journey comprising:
determining if a co-borrow is provided;
determining if the user is prequalified; and
presenting an offer.
The steps “determining”, “determining”, and “presenting” should be “determine”, “determine”, and “present”.
Claim 11 recites: A system … cause the device to:
provide end-to-end account opening;
determine if a co-borrow is provided,
determine if the user is prequalified;
present an offer;
determine if collateral exists, and if collateral does exist, input collateral information;
provide approval for a hard inquiry to the borrower’s credit report; and
determining if the user is auto approved or request additional information.
The step “determining” should be “determine”. Appropriate correction is required in response to this Office Action.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Under the 2019 Revised PEG, Step 1 analysis, the claims are reviewed to determine whether they fall within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or combination of matter).
Claims 1-10 recite a system for providing credit offers, private label prequalification for lenders and account opening, claims 11-19 recite another system for providing credit offers, private label prequalification for lenders and account opening, and claim 20 recites a method for providing credit offers, private label prequalification for lenders and account opening. Therefore, the claims are directed to a machine, process, and manufacture which fall within the four statutory categories of invention (Step 1-Yes, the claims are statutory).
Step 2A, Prong 1:
Under the 2019 Revised PEG, Step 2A, Prong 1, the claims are reviewed to determine whether they recite a judicial exception by identifying if the claim limitations fall in one of the enumerated abstract idea groupings (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability. Using the text of claim 20 as an example, the claim recites:
Claim 20, A method for providing credit offers, private label prequalification for lenders, and account opening, including a processor and a non-transitory, computer readable memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor upon a user selection, perform the steps of:
providing end-to-end account opening;
determining if a co-borrow is provided;
determining if the user is prequalified;
presenting an offer;
determining if collateral exists, and if collateral does exist, inputting collateral information;
providing approval for a hard inquiry to the borrower's credit report; and
determining if the user is auto approved or request additional information.
The claim limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a method of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g., an user computing device, user network, application server, application program, user interface module, processors and non-transitory computer readable memories with stored in instructions - see claims 1 and 11). More specifically, the claim recites a method for providing credit offers, private label prequalification for lenders, and account opening between borrowers and lenders. The claim recites the abstract idea of a method of organizing human activity because it relates to a fundamental economic practice - providing credit offers, private label prequalification for lenders, and account opening to mitigate risk before matching borrowers and lenders (e.g. hedging, insurance, mitigating risk) and a commercial interaction between borrowers and lenders (e.g. agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)III.C.2
Referring to the limitations above, the claim recites an abstract idea enumerated in MPEP 2106. Specifically, the claim recites the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity. More specifically, as drafted, the claim only recites the commercial or legal interaction of providing credit offers, private label prequalification for lenders, and account opening. Please see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B) discussing claims directed to the abstract idea of processing an application for financing a loan as having no meaningful distinction between this type of financial industry practice and the concept of intermediated settlement in Alice or the hedging concept in Bilski.
Although the claim has been placed in the commercial or legal interactions subgrouping of the abstract idea grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity discussed in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B), the claim also falls in the fundamental economic practices or principles subgrouping discussed in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A). MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A) notes "The category of abstract ideas embraces ‘fundamental economic practice[s] long prevalent in our system of commerce,’ … including ‘longstanding commercial practice[s]’”. It is respectfully submitted that providing credit offers, private label prequalification for lenders, and account opening are long prevalent in our system of commerce and long standing commercial practices.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a fundamental economic practice and/or commercial interaction, then it falls within the "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, claim 20 recites an abstract idea.
While method claim 20 is addressed above, the analysis above can be applied to system claims 1 and 11 where the processors and memories also serve as mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components. The system claims 1 and 11 recite the additional computer elements, such as:
at least one user computing device in operable connection with a user network; an application server in operable communication with the user network, the application server configured to host an application program for providing credit offers, private label prequalification for one or more lenders, and an account opening process, the application program having a user interface module for providing access to the application program via the at least one user computing device; a processor and a non-transitory, computer readable memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor upon a user selection, cause the device to:
This step declares a system including the processors, the memories with the stored instructions, the network, the application server, and the application program. These additional elements all 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 components. The mere nominal recitation of computer components (i.e., an user computing device, user network, application server, application program, user interface module, processors and non-transitory computer readable memories with stored in instructions) do not take the claims out of the Certain Methods Of Organizing Human activity grouping. Therefore, claims 1 and 11 also recite an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong 1-Yes, the claims recite an abstract idea).
Step 2A, Prong 2:
Under the 2019 Revised PEG, Step 2A, Prong 2, the claims are reviewed to determine whether the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) is integrated into a practical application. In order to make this determination, the additional element(s), or combination of elements, are analyzed to determine if the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will 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 judicial exception.
Regarding claims 1, 11, and 20, these claims only recite the additional elements of at least one user computing device, user network, application server, application program, user interface module and non-transitory computer readable memory to perform a method for providing credit offers, private label prequalification for lenders, and account opening, including providing end-to-end account opening; determining if a co-borrow is provided; determining if the user is prequalified; presenting an offer; determining if collateral exists, and if collateral does exist, inputting collateral information; providing approval for a hard inquiry to the borrower's credit report; and determining if the user is auto approved or request additional information. The computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Please see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1) discussing when the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished this does not show integration into a practical application. Please see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) discussing when the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process including use of a computer or other machinery for economic tasks this does not show integration into a practical application. It is further noted that the claimed invention as recited in claims 1, 11 and 20 do not pertain to an improvement in the functioning of the computer components themselves or a technological solution to a technological problem. Please also see MPEP 2106.05(g) regarding adding insignificant extra-solution activity including data gathering and manipulation. Please also see MPEP 2106.05(h) regarding field of use and technological environment.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claims 1, 11, and 20 recite the additional elements of processors and memories with stored instructions. The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., a generic processor performing generic computer functions such as providing data (end-to-end account opening); determining data (if a co-borrow is provided); determining data (if the user is prequalified); presenting data (an offer); determining data (if collateral exists, and if collateral does exist, inputting collateral information); providing data (approval for a hard inquiry to the borrower's credit report); and determining data (if the user is auto approved or request additional information) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (see Specification, paragraphs 29-54 and Figures 1-2). Accordingly, the 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. Therefore, claims 1, 11, and 20 are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong 2-No, the claims are not integrated into a practical application).
Step 2B:
Under the 2019 Revised PEG, Step 2A, Prong 2, the claims are reviewed to determine whether the claims provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the claim(s) include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea)).
Regarding claims 1, 11 and 20, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of at least one user computing device, user network, application server, application program, user interface module and non-transitory computer readable memory to perform a method for providing credit offers, private label prequalification for lenders, and account opening, including providing end-to-end account opening; determining if a co-borrow is provided; determining if the user is prequalified; presenting an offer; determining if collateral exists, and if collateral does exist, inputting collateral information; providing approval for a hard inquiry to the borrower's credit report; and determining if the user is auto approved or request additional information amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The computer components implementing the abstract idea are generic in view of at least Applicant’s Specification, [0029]. Accordingly, claims 1, 11 and 20 do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
In view of the above analysis, independent claims 1, 11 and 20 are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-29 depend on claims 1 and 11, and therefor include all the limitations of claims 1 and 11. Therefore, the dependent claims also recite the same abstract idea as their independent claims.
Claims 2 and 12 recite the additional elements “wherein the account opening process includes a designation display for a lowest payment, a lowest rate, or an offer." (The elements are additional detailed instructions for the account opening process to include a designation display). These claims individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea).
Claims 3 and 13 recite the additional elements “wherein the lending journey is not provided with a request for a specific loan amount." (The elements are additional detailed instructions for the lending journey is not provided). These claims individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea).
Claims 4 and 14 recite the additional elements “further comprising a prescreen process to prepare a preapproval file." (The elements are additional detailed instructions for the prescreening process to prepare a preapproval file). These claims individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea).
Claims 5 and 15 recite the additional elements “wherein the preapproval file is transmitted via email using a communication module." (The elements are additional detailed instructions for the preapproval file). These claims individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea).
Claims 6 and 16 recite the additional elements “wherein the communication module transmits mail to one or more prequalified buyers." (The elements are additional detailed instructions for the communication module to transmit emails to the prequalified buyers). These claims individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea).
Claims 7 and 17 recite the additional elements “further comprising the step of a credit module applying one or more credit rules to the preapproval file." (The elements are additional detailed instructions for the step of the credit module to apply the credit rules to the preapproval file). These claims individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea).
Claims 8 and 18 recite the additional elements “further comprising a decision module in communication with at least one credit bureau to determine if the credit bureau may issue the loan to the one or more prequalified buyers." (The elements are additional detailed instructions for the decision module to communicate with the credit bureau). These claims individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea).
Claims 9 and 19 recite the additional elements "wherein a borrower, the credit bureau, a bank, and a credit union can interact with the loan to begin an underwriting process." (The elements are additional detailed instructions for the borrower, the credit bureau, the bank, and credit union to begin the underwriting process). These claims individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea).
Claim 10 recites the additional elements “further comprising a deposit account capable of determining if a user is a member by referencing a core system integration, create an application, determine eligibility, and generate one or more update offers." (The elements are additional detailed instructions for the deposit account capable for determining if a user is a member). This claim individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea).
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19 do not cure the deficiencies in their respective base claims. Specifically, claims 2-10 and 12-19 merely refine the abstract idea (2A1) by invoking a computer as a tool to perform an existing process (2A2, 2B). Regarding the further additional elements in the dependent claims including the designation display (claims 2, 12); email, communication module (claims 5, 15); credit module (claims 7, 17); and core system integration (claim 10), please see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) discussing when the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process including use of a computer or other machinery for economic tasks this does not show integration into a practical application or provide significantly more. Each and every recited combination between the recited computing hardware and the recited computing functions has been considered. No non-generic or non-conventional arrangement is found. There is no inventive concept found in the claims. The dependent claims do no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technical environment or field of use.
Therefore, dependent claims 2-12 and 12-19 also are not patent eligible.
The focus of the claims (1-20) is on a method for providing credit offers, private label prequalification for lenders, and account opening between borrowers and lenders. The claims are not directed to a new type of processor, network, system memory, or user interface, nor do they provide a method of processing data that improves existing technological processes. The focus of the claims is not on improving computer-related technology, but on an independently abstract idea that uses computers as tools. The claims do not add a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. Accordingly, when viewed as a whole, the claims do no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. No inventive concept is found in the claims. Therefore, the claims do not add significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea (Step 2B-No, the claims are not significantly more than the abstract idea).
Note: the Examiner notes that the claimed invention is basically an automation of a known process. Automating a known process (or manual process) is “a business solution” and this is supported in paragraphs 3, 5-6 of the Specification (see US Publication No. 2024/0046348-A1).
[0003] As a first issue, technology automation exists that matches a single borrower to a single lender. This technology is often recycled and will be repeated or manually applied for iterative matching with each incremental lender. Occasionally, in order to save time, money, and effort, an underwriter will attempt to guess or otherwise estimate the most likely lenders (e.g., two or three) that may be willing to work with a borrower. In such instances, the underwriter may only run those lenders' criteria. This may result in the introduction or inclusion of human bias and inefficient back and forth discussions with sub-optimal lenders in early stages. As such, the result may be a reduced or eliminated ability to timely complete a loan for the borrower. Systems and methods are desirable that significantly reduce human capital expenditure in the form of time and effort. The removal and/or significant reduction of lender selection bias and significant improvement of loan processing times is also desirable.
[0005] As a third issue, the process for opening a deposit account currently involves filling out a number of forms, physically traveling to a branch for identity verification, confirming eSignatures via email or physically executing signatures at branch, physically giving a check to a representative at a branch for an initial deposit, and waiting several days and weeks for an account to be opened. As such, this process can be time consuming and inconvenient. Systems and methods that simplify and ease the entire account setup process are highly desirable. These may include fully configurable steps that allow for seamless and quick start to finish operation by end customers. 100% remote and rapid account opening (e.g., in under 15 minutes) would be beneficial. What would otherwise be a time-consuming process that requires days or weeks to perform with physical travel to a branch on multiple occasions would benefit from being performed over a computer network in under fifteen minutes. This degree of automation could be configurable across financial institutions.
[0006] As a fourth issue, the process of identifying additional product suggestions that can be highly beneficial to the applicant can be a very time consuming and a human resource intensive process. Further, to be able to consider product suggestions from different product categories can be an even more complex decisioning making process (e.g., identifying and automating deposit product suggestions and choices in the loan process or identifying and determining eligibility of loan product offers in the deposit account process). Automation of such processes delivers self service capabilities in this product recommendation and suggestion process.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ivankovich (US 2019/0213674, hereinafter “Ivankovich”) in view of Chirehdast (US 2014/0172687, hereinafter “Chirehdast”).
Claim 1, A system for providing credit offers, private label prequalification for lenders, and account opening, the system comprising: (Ivankovich, Fig. 1, [0047], infrastructure 100, arranging financing. Ivankovich does not disclose account opening. Chirehdast, [0068], discusses establishing a new account. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the financing of Ivankovich with the establishing a new account of Chirehdast in order to establish a relationship between a user and a lender in order to prevent fraud as discussed in Chirehdast, [0068], and assess the risk of a loan as discussed in Ivankovich, [0055]. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to include the features as taught in Chirehdast in Ivankovich since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, both are in the loan/credit processing and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the combination to be predictable.)
at least one user computing device in operable connection with a user network; (Ivankovich, Fig. 1, [0047], borrower 120, communication network)
an application server in operable communication with the user network, the application server configured to host an application program for providing credit offers, private label prequalification for one or more lenders, and an account opening process, (Ivankovich, Fig. 1, [0047], lender 130, automated financing system)
the application program having a user interface module for providing access to the application program via the at least one user computing device; (Ivankovich, Fig. 1, [0048], borrower 120 accesses auto loan origination system from a web page of the lender 130 through communications network 110)
a processor and a non-transitory, computer readable memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor upon a user selection, cause the device to: (Ivankovich, Fig. 12, [0097]-[0099], processing unit, computer readable media)
provide end-to-end account opening; and (Ivankovich, Fig. 4, [0074], application 220’ through funding 270’)
provide the deployment of a lending journey comprising: (Ivankovich, Fig. 4, [0074], application 220’)
determining if a co-borrow is provided; (Ivankovich does not disclose determining if a co-borrow is provided. Chirehdast, [0079], discusses co-signers to a loan. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the application of Ivankovich with the co-signer of Chirehdast in order to evaluate risk as discussed in Chirehdast, [0171], and Ivankovich, [0031].)
determining if the user is prequalified; and (Ivankovich, Fig. 5, [0077], selecting potential applicants)
presenting an offer. (Ivankovich, Fig. 4, [0074], offer 240’)
Claim 11, A system for providing credit offers, private label prequalification for lenders, and account opening, the system comprising: (Ivankovich, Fig. 1, [0047], infrastructure 100, arranging financing. Ivankovich does not disclose account opening. Chirehdast, [0068], discusses establishing a new account. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the financing of Ivankovich with the establishing a new account of Chirehdast in order to establish a relationship between a user and a lender in order to prevent fraud as discussed in Chirehdast, [0068], and assess the risk of a loan as discussed in Ivankovich, [0055].)
at least one user computing device in operable connection with a user network; (Ivankovich, Fig. 1, [0047], borrower 120, communication network)
an application server in operable communication with the user network, the application server configured to host an application program for providing credit offers, private label prequalification for one or more lenders, and an account opening process, (Ivankovich, Fig. 1, [0047], lender 130, automated financing system)
the application program having a user interface module for providing access to the application program via the at least one user computing device; (Ivankovich, Fig. 1, [0048], borrower 120 accesses auto loan origination system from a web page of the lender 130 through communications network 110)
a processor and a non-transitory, computer readable memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor upon a user selection, cause the device to: (Ivankovich, Fig. 12, [0097]-[0099], processing unit, computer readable media)
provide end-to-end account opening; (Ivankovich, Fig. 4, [0074], application 220’ through funding 270’)
determine if a co-borrow is provided; (Ivankovich does not disclose determining if a co-borrow is provided. Chirehdast, [0079], discusses co-signers to a loan. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the application of Ivankovich with the co-signer of Chirehdast in order to evaluate risk as discussed in Chirehdast, [0171], and Ivankovich, [0031].)
determine if the user is prequalified; (Ivankovich, Fig. 5, [0077], selecting potential applicants)
present an offer; (Ivankovich, Fig. 4, [0074], offer 240’)
determine if collateral exists, and if collateral does exist, inputting collateral information; (Ivankovich, Fig. 9, [0081], collateral)
provide approval for a hard inquiry to the borrower's credit report; (Ivankovich, [0053], permission to obtain full credit report)
determining if the user is auto approved or request additional information. (Ivankovich, Fig. 7, [0079], pre-qualified at 760)
Claim 20, this claim written in method form corresponds to claim 11 and has the same elements and limitations. Hence, it is rejected on the same grounds. Regarding method claim 20, Ivankovich, Fig. 4, [0074], process flow 400.
Claim 2 recites:
The system of Claim 1, wherein the account opening process includes a designation display for a lowest payment, a lowest rate, or an offer. (Ivankovich, Fig. 4, [0074], offer 240’).
Claim 12, this claim written in system form corresponds to claim 2 and has the same elements and limitation. Hence, it is rejected on the same grounds.
Claim 3 recites:
The system of Claim 1, wherein the lending journey is not provided with a request for a specific loan amount. (Ivankovich, Fig. 2, [0054], application process does not include amount).
Claim 13, this claim written in system form corresponds to claim 3 and has the same elements and limitation. Hence, it is rejected on the same grounds.
Claim 4 recites:
The system of Claim 1, further comprising a prescreen process to prepare a preapproval file. (Ivankovich, Fig. 4, [0075], pre-origination processing 405).
Claim 14, this claim written in system form corresponds to claim 4 and has the same elements and limitation. Hence, it is rejected on the same grounds.
Claim 5 recites:
The system of Claim 4, wherein the preapproval file is transmitted via email using a communication module. (Ivankovich, Fig. 5, [0077], invitation-to-apply. Ivankovich does not specifically disclose the preapproval file is transmitted via email using a communication module. Chirehdast, [0300], emailing notice of pre-selection. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the communication of Ivankovich with the email of Chirehdast in order to encourage a borrower as discussed in Chirehdast, [0062], and Ivankovich, [0077].).
Claim 15, this claim written in system form corresponds to claim 5 and has the same elements and limitation. Hence, it is rejected on the same grounds.
Claim 6 recites:
The system of Claim 5, wherein the communication module transmits mail to one or more prequalified buyers. (Ivankovich, Fig. 5, [0077], invitation-to-apply to selected potential applicants. Ivankovich does not specifically disclose the communication module transmits mail to one or more prequalified buyers. Chirehdast, [0300], notice may be a letter of pre-selection. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the communication of Ivankovich with the letter of Chirehdast in order to encourage a borrower as discussed in Chirehdast, [0062], and Ivankovich, [0077].)
Claim 16, this claim written in system form corresponds to claim 6 and has the same elements and limitation. Hence, it is rejected on the same grounds.
Claim 7 recites:
The system of Claim 6, further comprising the step of a credit module applying one or more credit rules to the preapproval file. (Ivankovich, Fig. 5, [0077], pre-qualification includes comparing credit score against internal criteria)
Claim 17, this claim written in system form corresponds to claim 7 and has the same elements and limitation. Hence, it is rejected on the same grounds.
Claim 8 recites:
The system of Claim 7, further comprising a decision module in communication with at least one credit bureau to determine if the credit bureau may issue the loan to the one or more prequalified buyers. (Ivankovich, Fig. 5, [0077], selecting potential applicants most likely to qualify)
Claim 18, this claim written in system form corresponds to claim 8 and has the same elements and limitation. Hence, it is rejected on the same grounds.
Claim 9 recites:
The system of Claim 8, wherein a borrower, the credit bureau, a bank, and a credit union can interact with the loan to begin an underwriting process. (Ivankovich, [0055], underwriting)
Claim 19, this claim written in system form corresponds to claim 9 and has the same elements and limitation. Hence, it is rejected on the same grounds.
Claim 10 recites:
The system of Claim 9, further comprising a deposit account capable of determining if a user is a member by referencing a core system integration, create an application, determine eligibility, and generate one or more update offers. (Ivankovich does not specifically disclose a deposit account capable of determining if a user is a member by referencing a core system integration, create an application, determine eligibility, and generate one or more update offers. Chirehdast, [0084], discusses an existing relationship with the lender, internal databases, lending product application, and Chirehdast, Table 7, [0248], discusses balances in deposit accounts. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the application of Ivankovich with the deposit accounts and integration of Chirehdast in order to evaluate risk as discussed in Chirehdast, [0171], and Ivankovich, [0031].)
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant's arguments filed 03/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Per page 6, lines 5-2 of page 7 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that the 09-09-2026 Non-Final Rejection ignores the limitations recited in system claims 1 and 11, such as:
at least one user computing device in operable connection with a user network; an application server in operable communication with the user network, the application server configured to host an application program for providing credit offers, private label prequalification for one or more lenders, and an account opening process, the application program having a user interface module for providing access to the application program via the at least one user computing device; a processor and a non-transitory, computer readable memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor upon a user selection, cause the device to:
Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. These limitations were addressed in paragraph 8 in Step 2A, prong two of the previous Non-Final Rejection. However, in view of Applicant’s comments, these limitations are also addressed in Step 2A, prong one of the current Office Action (see above).
As explained in Step 2A, prong one in above, these additional computer elements all 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 components. The mere nominal recitation of computer components (i.e., an user computing device, user network, application server, application program, user interface module, processors and non-transitory computer readable memories with stored in instructions) do not take the claims out of the Certain Methods Of Organizing Human activity grouping. Therefore, claims 1 and 11 also recite an abstract idea.
Also, as explained in Step 2A, prong 2 in above, these computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, Applicant’s amendments and arguments are not persuasive.
Per page 7, lines 3-7 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that the claimed method is implemented by a network-based system, the system includes computing devices, application server and databases. The automated network-bound system and process cannot be equated to any type of human activity or organizing human activity as alleged by the Office using broadest possible interpretation.
Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant recites a system (or network-based system) which includes the processors, the memories with the stored instructions, the network, the application server, and the application program. All these computer elements 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 components. As explained in the previous Office Action and in the current Office Action, the mere nominal recitation of computer components do not take the claims out of the Certain Methods Of Organizing Human activity grouping and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, Applicant’s amendments and arguments are not persuasive.
Per page 7, lines 8-22 of the Remarks, Applicant argues the steps executed by the system are not a “Mental Process” alleged by the Examiner. Applicant argues that “anything that involves automated data analytics and processing cannot be equated with the mental process of human activity that may be performed with pen and paper.
Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Neither the previous nor current Office Action rejected the claims as being a “Mental Process”. The claims are rejected as a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity which is a different subcategory grouping of the Abstract Ideas. Therefore, Applicant’s amendments and arguments are not persuasive.
Per page 7, lines 23-6 of page 8 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that “… The normal functionality of a computer does not include the application server in operable communication with the user network, the application server configured to host an application program for providing credit offers, private label prequalification for one or more lenders, and an account opening process, the application program having a user interface module for providing access to the application program via the at least one user computing device.”
Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant’s system claims only recite the basic computer components, such as a user computing device, user network, application server, application program, user interface module, and non-transitory computer readable memory with stored instructions. It should be noted that integration between computer components is the process of connecting different software, hardware, and data sources so they can work together as a single, unified system. This allows for seamless data sharing, process automation, and improved operational efficiency by eliminating manual data entry and creating a single source of truth. However, neither Applicant's claims nor the Specification describe any technical details on how the integration is accomplished. It is further noted that the claims do not even include a program claim to show how the system is integrated to work together. Neither the claims nor the Specification discuss the methods of the integration, such as direct integration, application programming interface, middleware, manual processing, etc. No technical details on the integration is disclosed in the claims or in the Specification. Therefore, the Examiner treats the system as a generic system. Automating a known process (or a manual process) using a generic system is “a business solution” and not patent eligible. Applicant’s claimed invention basically uses a generic system to automate a known process and uses it in its ordinary capacity. Therefore, Applicant’s amendments and arguments are not persuasive and the rejection of the claims under 35 USC § 101 is MAINTAINED.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Per pages 8-10 of the Remarks, Applicant cites Figure 10 from Ivankovich and argues that Ivankovich does not teach the limitations at least:
determining if the user is prequalified;
presenting an offer;
determining if collateral exists, and if collateral does exist, inputting
collateral information;
providing approval for a hard inquiry to the borrower's credit report; and
determining if the user is auto approved or request additional information.
Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner did not use the information from Figure 10 or the Figure to reject the limitation “determining if collateral exists, and if collateral does exist, inputting collateral information;”. Instead, the Examiner uses the information from paragraph 81 and Figure 9 to reject the limitation (see Ivankovich, at least Fig. 9, [0081], collateral). In fact, the Examiner did not use Figure 10 and its description for rejecting any of the limitations as recited in claims 1, 11, and 20. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejection of the claims under 35 USC § 103 is MAINTAINED.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically explaining why and how the cited information did not disclose the claim limitations.
The prior arts made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The arts are listed in the attached PTO-892 form.
Conclusion
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
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 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 HAI TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7364. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9-5.
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, Christine M. Behncke can be reached at 571-272-8103. 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.
HAI TRAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3695
/HAI TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3695
Prosecution Insights