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 .
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 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claims does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons that follow:
PNG
media_image1.png
608
975
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Step 1 – Claims are directed to a method, system and product
Step 2A – The representative claim is directed to a certain methods of organizing human activity , the steps that make up the abstract idea are the following:
execution of the at least one set of instructions by at least one processor causes the at least one processor to perform at least the processor-implemented algorithmic operations of :
as a function of equity in the current home terms for a loan offering required for the homeowner to purchase the next home,wherein the loan offering includes origination of a first loan and approval of a second loan,
wherein said deriving is performed in accordance with a requirement of a lender of the first loan to buy the current home from the homeowner at a prescribed price in response to expiration of a prescribed duration of time following at least one of acceptance of said offering and an offer by the homeowner of the next home being accepted,
wherein said processor-implemented algorithmic operations of deriving terms for the loan offering comprise operations of an automated offer underwriting system,
and wherein said operations of the automated offer underwriting system include:quantifying purchase price guarantee pairings as a function of risk of selling homes within a zip code within which the current home is located using information characterizing sales of homes within the zip code, wherein each of the purchase price guarantee pairings includes a purchase price range and a loan offering pendency period over which the purchase price range is valid,
wherein said quantifying includes said information characterizing sales of homes within the zip code being automatically updated in real-time to cause said purchase price guarantee pairings to be correspondingly updated computing a distribution curve around the likelihood that the trade-in mortgage lender will have to purchase the current home as a function of the market-level risk of selling homes within a zip code computing a current value of the current home as a function of valuation data generated by an automated valuation model integrated therein using information characterizing the current home:
computing a guaranteed purchase price of the loan offering for the current home as a function of the current value of the current home enabling the lender to select the offering utilizing the distribution curve to choose the loan offering from among a plurality of available loan offerings providing, to the homeowner, the loan offering in response to receiving selection of the loan offering by the lender and
receiving, from the homeowner, acceptance of the loan offering;
receiving information generated during origination of the first loan and approval of the second loan in response to the homeowne
enabling funding and closing of the second loan using funds from the first loan in response to an offer on the next home by the homeowner being accepted;
and causing the first loan and a mortgage balance amount of the first home to be repaid based upon funds obtained by selling the current home after funding and closing of the second loan.
The steps 1-5 7-11 above describe a fundamental economic practice, commercial interactions, and managing interactions between people, and therefore a certain method of organizing human activity. Further, the limitations, as drafted, describe a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the steps cover performance of the limitation by a human analog but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than the recitation of the processor nothing in the claims precludes the steps from practically being performed by a human analog. For example, but for this language, the claim encompasses performing periodic savings with transaction controls by a human analog. Here, the mere nominal recitation of the generic computer components does not take the claim limitation out of the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping. As such, the claims recite an abstract idea under prong one.
The steps 6 and 7 can be categorized as mathematical concepts.
The analysis proceeds to Step 2A Prong Two.
Eligibility Analysis, Step 2A Prong Two
Prong two consists of determining whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim recites the following additional element in bold above:
execution of the at least one set of instructions by at least one processor causes the at least one processor to perform at least the processor-implemented algorithmic operations
wherein said processor-implemented algorithmic operations of deriving terms for the loan offering comprise operations of an automated offer underwriting system
The additional elements in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. They do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. As such, the claims are directed to the abstract idea. The analysis proceeds to Step 2B.
Eligibility Analysis, Step 2B
Step 2B consists of determining whether the claim provides an inventive concept by considering whether the additional elements go beyond what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity.
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106; see also USPTO: July 2015 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility):
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink.” (emphasis added));
ii. Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.”);
iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2359, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (creating and maintaining “shadow accounts”); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log);
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
In the case of the instant claims, the generic application of the processor and similarly does not make the invention patent-eligible. Note that the disclosure recites general computer products which are suitable to perform the claimed method. Moreover, the specification does not contribute any technically-specific computer algorithm or code, but rather merely states that the claimed steps may be performed by the generic modules with the expectation that one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of implementation without further instruction. The use of computing devices in this manner is merely what computers do, ie. performing repetitive calculations, receiving, processing, and storing data, and automating mental tasks, and does not change the analysis. Whilst the implementation of such a solution may include the use of generic technical features, these merely serve their well-understood functions as would be recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art in the technical field under consideration. As such, the claims' invocation of the computer merely amounts to the limiting of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Here, the involvement of the processor and underwritting system does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-eligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. The use of generic computer components in this manner does not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality, as discussed above. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Independent claims 15 and 23 recite substantially similar limitations as independent claim 1 and is rejected accordingly. Dependent claims 2-14, 16-22, and 24-30 do not remedy the deficiencies of the independent claims and are rejected accordingly. In this case, all claims have been reviewed and are found to be substantially similar and linked to the same abstract idea (see Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo (Fed. Cir. 2014)).
Response to Arguments
The applicant argues that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea and points to several features of the claims and the benefits to the homeowner that result.
This argument is not persuasive as the claims recite a judicial exception including a fundamental economic principle or practice, pursuant to Step 2A, Prong One of the Guidance. See § 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A)(“The fundamental economic practice at issue was hedging or protecting against risk.”);
The applicant next argues that the claims are integrated into a practical application. – “the practical application of instantiating a special-purpose machine that leverages market-based and collateral- based risk information to generate a loan offering for a homeowner's current home for use in a trade-in mortgage process enabling the homeowner to utilize equity of their current home in purchasing a next home prior to selling their current home, where the market-based and collateral- based risk information serve to mitigate respective risk considerations for both the homeowner and an offering lender involved in the trade-in mortgage process.
This argument is not persuasive as the amended limitations relating to use the distribution curve can optionally be considered the abstract concepts of mental processes or mathematical concepts, as the broadest interpretation of the claimed steps could be performed purely mentally or computers long in use with no new machinery being necessary. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) (quoting Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)); Accordingly, the disputed limitations recite a judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2)(“[I]f the additional claim elements merely recite another judicial exception, that is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See, e.g., RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, . . . (Fed. Cir. 2017) (‘Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract’).”).
MPEP § 2106.05(f); Alice, 573 U.S., 222 (“We accordingly held that simply implementing a mathematical principle on a physical machine, namely a computer, is not a patentable application of that principle.”)
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 RICHARD C WEISBERGER whose telephone number is (571)272-6753. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 10AM-8PM PCT.
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, Michael Anderson can be reached at 571-270-0580. 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.
RICHARD C. WEISBERGER
Examiner
Art Unit 3693
/RICHARD C WEISBERGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693