DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s representative argues that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea
because “amended Claim 2 now recites that “each credit score simulation parameter includes a hypothetical user financial behavior and a numerical value representing its relative contribution to an estimated credit score.” This formulation reflects a system architecture where discrete and quantifiable behaviors are assigned relative scoring weights.
In response, the claims as amended now merely provides descriptive data of parameters of the user financial behavior and a data value in the form of a numerical value representing a relative contribution to an estimated credit score. There is not a function nor a positive recitation of an additional element performing any function. Accordingly, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant’s representative then states and argues that:
“the claims recite one or more processors configured to cause modification of the user interface to expand a portion of the interface to display at least one of the initial credit score simulation parameters. The “expanded portion” helps focused and context-sensitive feedback match with user actions”.
Applicant’s representative further states “The claims constitute more than a generic implementation and include solutions to concrete problems faced by conventional credit score tools. See, e.g., Paragraphs [0005]-[0007]. So, taken together, the claims recite significantly more than a general concept and are directed to a concrete technological implementation of credit score simulation. Accordingly, the pending claims are patent- eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. For at least the above reasons, Applicant submits that the claims recite statutory subject matter pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 101. Applicant respectfully requests that the Office reconsider and withdraw the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101.”.
In response, it has been clearly enumerated that claims directed to an abstract idea are patent-ineligible. Abstract ideas are characterized as concepts identified by the courts which include (1) mathematical concepts, (2) mental processes and (3) certain methods of organizing human activity.
Among those concepts performed as being identified in the category of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” are “commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations).
The claimed concept falls into the category of functions of organizing human activities such as performing commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors or business relations) because it amounts to the generating of an updated credit score scenario with respective updated credit score simulation parameters based on an updated target credit score. The generating function is also considered as mental steps. The BRI of the claimed limitations describe functions of generating an updated credit score simulation scenario.
Each of these independent claims uses generic computer technology (such as a generic processor, database and user interface) to data accessing, receiving, generating and the displaying of data as such do not recite an improvement to a particular computer technology. See, e.g., McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F .3 d 1299, 1314-1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ( finding claims not abstract because they "focused on a specific asserted improvement in computer animation").
As such, claims 1 and 16 recite accessing, receiving data, generating and displaying data as such are not a technological implementation or improvement of a technological field.
Applicant is to be reminded that a system, apparatus, machine or method for performing business, however, novel, useful, or commercially successful, is not patentable apart from the means for making the system practically useful or carrying it out. The applicant is making use of generic devices to display an offer for insurance for one or more products after certain acquired activity from a sensor are acquired. The claims are void of anything significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, the additional elements (such as a generic processor, database and user interface) do not improve (1) the processor or database and user interface, or (2) another technology or technical field. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (citing MPEP § 2106.05(a)). Rather, the above-noted additional elements merely (1) apply the abstract idea on a computer; (2) include instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer (the blockchain platform) ; or (3) use the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (citing MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the recited additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application when reading the claims.
None of the steps, functions and/or elements recited in the claims provide, and nowhere in the applicant’s shows any description or explanation as to how the claimed computing decices or processors, database and user interface are intended to provide: (1) a “solution . . . necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks,” as explained by the Federal Circuit in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2014); (2) “a specific improvement to the way computers operate,” as explained in Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1336; or (3) an “unconventional technological solution ... to a technological problem” that “improve[s] the performance of the system itself,” as explained in Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288, 1299-1300 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly claims 2-9 and 12-20 as amended are directed to an abstract idea.
A 35 USC rejection based on the claims as amended on 11/20/2025 is found below.
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 2-9 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because 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.
Subject Matter Eligibility Standard
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, 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.
Specifically, claim 16 is directed to a method. Claim 2 is directed to a system. Each of the claims falls under one of the four statutory classes of invention.
If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea).
Claim 2 recites:
memory; and
one or more hardware processors configured to:
access, from a database, credit data associated with a user, wherein the credit data includes a credit score for the user;
access data associated with a plurality of predefined credit score simulation scenarios, wherein data associated with each credit score simulation scenario includes respective plurality of credit score simulation parameters;
generate a user interface for display including a first user interface control for receiving an indication of a target credit score for the user;
receive the indication of the target credit score from the user via the
based at least in part on the target credit score, generate an initial credit score simulation scenario based on one or more of the plurality of predefined credit score simulation scenarios, wherein the initial credit score simulation scenario includes respective initial credit score simulation parameters for the target credit score based on the credit data, and wherein each credit score simulation parameter includes a hypothetical user financial behavior and a numerical value representing its relative contribution to an estimated credit score;
cause modification of the user interface to expand a portion of the user interface to display at least one of the initial credit score simulation parameters;
receive an indication of an updated target credit score from the user interface via the first user interface control; and
based in part on cached credit scoring models stored on the database, generate an updated credit score simulation scenario with respective updated credit score simulation parameters based on the updated target credit score.
Claim 3 recites wherein the one or more hardware processors are further configured to: hide display of the initial credit score simulation parameters; and display an expanded view of the updated credit score simulation scenario adjacent to the first user interface control.
Claim 4 recites wherein the first user interface control comprises a sliding bar, and wherein the indication of the updated target credit score from the user is received based at least in part on user interaction with the sliding bar.
Claim 5 recites wherein the user interface further comprises a second user interface control for a target time frame for the target credit score, and wherein the one or more hardware processors are further configured to receive an indication of an updated target time frame from the user interface, wherein to generate the updated credit score simulation scenario is further based on the updated target time frame.
Claim 6 recites: wherein the second interface further comprises a sliding bar control to input the target credit score, a time-based graphical timeline showing projected score changes, and color-coded display elements indicating whether the project score impact is positive, negative or neutral.
Accordingly, claim 6 merely provides data content on a user interface.
Claim 7 recites wherein the database is local to the system.
Claim 8 recites wherein the database is external to the system.
Claim 9 recites wherein the initial credit score simulation parameters comprise at least one of: paying off at least a certain portion of outstanding debts, making payments on time over a certain period of time, changing an average age of accounts, changing an amount of available credit, applying for a new loan, or applying for a new credit card.
Claim 12 recites wherein the at least one of the initial credit score simulation parameter parameters in the updated user interface is displayed in a color that reflects a credit risk associated with the parameter at least one of the initial credit score simulation parameters.
Claim 13 recites. wherein the first user interface control comprises a rotary dial.
Claim 14 recites wherein the user interface further comprises an indication of a positive or negative effect on a credit score corresponding to the initial credit score simulation parameters.
Claim 15 recites wherein the user interface further comprises an indication of an expected credit score change over time in response to a user performing actions recommended in association with the at least one of the initial credit score simulation parameter parameters.
Claim 16 recites:
access, from a database, credit data associated with a user, wherein the credit data includes a credit score for the user;
access data associated with a plurality of predefined credit score simulation scenarios, wherein data associated with each credit score simulation scenario includes respective plurality of credit score simulation parameters;
generate a user interface for display including a first user interface control for receiving an indication of a target credit score for the user;
receive the indication of the target credit score from the user via the first user interface control;
based at least in part on the target credit score, generate an initial credit score simulation scenario based on one or more of the plurality of predefined credit score simulation scenarios, wherein the initial credit score simulation scenario includes respective initial credit score simulation parameters for the target credit score based on the credit data;
cause modification of the user interface to expand a portion of the user interface to display at least one of the initial credit score simulation parameters;
receive an indication of an updated target credit score from the user interface via the first user interface control; and
based in part on cached credit scoring models stored on the database generate an updated credit score simulation scenario with respective updated credit score simulation parameters based on the updated target credit score.
Claim 17 recites: wherein the generated user interface data includes a plurality of graphical indications in spatial relationship for each of the initial credit score simulation parameters, wherein the graphical indications indicate positive, neutral, or negative effect on credit scores.
Claim 18 recites: wherein the one or more processors to at least:
hide display of the initial credit score simulation parameters; and
display an expanded view of the updated credit score simulation scenario, wherein the expanded view of the updated credit score simulation scenario includes (a) a first time frame in spatial relation with a first simulated credit score and (b) a second time frame in spatial relation with a second simulated credit score, wherein the second time frame is longer than the first time frame.
Claim 19 recites: wherein the expanded view of the updated credit score simulation scenario includes one or more user input controls to receive one or more score simulation parameters associated with the corresponding updated credit score simulation parameter.
Claim 20 recites: wherein to display the expanded view of the updated credit score simulation scenario includes:
determining that data corresponding to the expanded view of the updated credit score simulation scenario is cached on a user computing device; and updating the user interface to include the expanded view to be positioned in spatial relation with the first user interface control.
Here, the claimed concept falls into the category of functions of organizing human activities such as performing commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors or business relations) because it amounts to the generating of an updated credit score scenario with respective updated credit score simulation parameters based on an updated target credit score.
The generating function is also considered as mental steps.
The BRI of the claimed limitations describe functions of generating an updated credit score simulation scenario. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, In particular, the clams recite the bolded limitations noted above as understood to be additional limitations:
These limitations performing steps of generating of an updated credit score scenario with respective updated credit score simulation parameters based on an updated target credit score merely amount to instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea ( see MPEP 2106.05(1) ), also see applicant's specification for guiding interpretation of these claim features, describing implementation with generic commercially available devices or any machine capable of executing a set of instructions, similarly describing usage of a general and special purpose computer and “any kind of digital computer” including generic commercially available devices.
The claimed “processors”, “computing device”, “database” and “user interface display” and “user interface control” are similarly understood in light of applicant's specification as mere usage of any arrangement of computer software or hardware intermediate components or display components potentially using networks to communicate between devices and display data, “now available or later developed may be used” which are properly understood to be mere instructions to apply the abstraction using a computer or device.
Performance of a receiving step by a computer processor amounts to performing steps which amount io insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering - see MPEP Z106.05(g}.
Performing steps by generic computer processors with memories merely limits the abstraction to computer field by execution by generic computers. See MPEP 2106.05¢h).
As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), limitations which amount to instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool, limitations which amount to insignificant extra-solution activity, and limitations which amount to generally linking to a particular technological environment do not integrate a practical exception into a practical application.
The claims recite accessing and receiving data using no specific structural devices even assuming accessing data using known device would still be considered as gathering functions using a device performing its intended functions. The breadth of these limitations reasonably includes accessing or collecting data.
Consideration of the steps in the claim as a combination does not change the analysis as they do not add anything compared to when the steps are considered separately. Claims 2 and 16 merely recites a particular sequence of functions to arrive at generating of an updated credit score scenario with respective updated credit score simulation parameters based on an updated target credit score.
The dependent claims merely recite displaying functions.
Step 2B: The elements discussed above with respect to the practical application in Step 2A, prong 2 are equally applicable to consideration of whether the claims amount to significantly more. Accordingly, the claims fail to recite additional elements which, when considered individually and in combination, amount to significantly more. Reconsideration of these elements identified as insignificant extra-solution activity as part of Step 2B does not change the analysis.
Accessing, receiving and displaying as claimed amount to receiving and transmitting information over a network has been recognized by the courts as well- understood, routine, and conventional (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), citing Symantec, 835 F.3d at 1321, 120 OSPQ2d at 1362 (Utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TL Communications LEC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, G10, L18 USPO2d 1744, 1748 (ed. Cir. 2016) Casing a telephone for image transmission); OFF Techs., fac. v. Amazon.com, fic., 788 B.Ad 1359, 1363, LiS USPO2d 1090, 1093 (ed, Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network}, buySAFE, fic. v. Google, Inc.. 768 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1996 (Pod, Cyr. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
Positively reciting a user interface and a database for storing data or software instructions does not change the analysis as these aspects are properly considered as additional elements which amount to instructions to apply it with a computer.
These claimed elements also as found in the dependent claims are also recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component.
In processing the claims, it is noted that the recitation of these additional elements do not impact the analysis of the claims because these elements in combination are noted only to be a general purpose computer component for performing basic or routine computer functions. These claimed elements are noted to a be performing routine and conventional functions. These additional elements do not overcome the analysis as these elements are merely considered as additional elements which amount to instructions to be applied to the generic computer.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claimed “database” and “user interface display” are recited at a high level of generality such they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. 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.
Accordingly, claims 2 and 16 are directed to an abstract idea.
The dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 2 and 16 and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANTZY POINVIL whose telephone number is (571)272-6797. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00AM to 5:30PM.
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 be reached on 571-270-0508. 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.
/fp/
/FRANTZY POINVIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
December 4, 2025