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 .
Status of Claims
• This action is in reply to the amendments filed on January 6, 2026.
• Claims 1, 7, 13, and 17 have been amended and are hereby entered.
• Claim 10 has been canceled.
• Claims 1-9 and 11-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
• This action is made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed January 6, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Examiner is withdrawing the 35 USC § 103 rejections due to Applicant’s amendments.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 35 USC § 101 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument on page 8, that the claims recite a specific technical implementation that improves data security and privacy in the loan evaluation system, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The pending claims do not describe a technical solution to a technical problem. The pending claims are directed to solving the problem of determining whether a loan should be approved or not (see at least [0002]-[0003] of the Specification). The claims of the instant application describe an improvement to a business process i.e., determining whether a loan should be approved or not, not improvement in the functioning of the computer itself or an improvement to any other technology or technological field.
Applicant further argues on page 8 that because the determined loan parameter only is inputted, the claims thereby ensure sensitive user data is not exposed to the distributed ledger. The argument is not persuasive. As an initial matter, the Examiner notes that shielding personal information of a user describes an improvement to a business process, particularly mitigating risk during handling and processing of a user’s financial information for a loan application. Furthermore, it is noted, mere automation of a process, without improving a technical aspect of that process, does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. See Intellectual Ventures 1 LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“merely adding computer functionality to increase the speed or efficiency of the process does not confer patent eligibility on an otherwise abstract idea.”).
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on pages 8-9, that the claims conserve computational resources and storage resources on the ledger, the argument has been considered and is not persuasive. In response to this argument, it is noted, “‘claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer’ [is] insufficient to render the claims patent eligible as an improvement to computer functionality.” Customedia, 951 F.3d at 1364 (quoting Intell. Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015)); see also BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“These benefits, however, are not improvements to database functionality. Instead, they are benefits that flow from performing an abstract idea in conjunction with a well-known database structure.”). The specification offers no explanation of how or why the claimed invention conserve computational resources and storage resources on the ledger, only an unexplained and unsupported conclusion on the subject.
Applicant further argues, on page 9, that the claims improve computer security. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The pending claims do not improve computer security; rather, the claims improve determining whether a loan should be approved or not (see at least [0002]-[0003] of the Specification).
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on pages 9-10, that the claims in combination are patent eligible and that the claims integrate a practical application, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis, Step 2A, prong two, integration into a practical application requires an additional element(s) or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application are those that generally link the use of the judicial exception into a particular technological environment or field of use-see MPEP 2106.05(h). Here the claims recite a computer-implemented method; a computer device, the computer device comprising one or more processors; a computer system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory memories having stored thereon computer-executable instructions; artificial intelligence (Al) and/or machine learning (ML)-based evaluation; one or more processors; a user device of a user; an Al and/or ML model; a first smart contract; inputting into a first smart contract; inputting from the first smart contract to a second smart contract; a second smart contract such that they amount to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g., a computer network) (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Furthermore, and in response to Applicant’s arguments on page 10 regarding improvements to technology, in determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application, a determination is made of whether the claimed invention pertains to an improvement in the functioning of the computer itself or any other technology or technical field (i.e., a technological solution to a technological problem). Here, the claims recite generic computer components, i.e., a generic processor, a memory storing a computer program executable by the processor to perform the claimed method steps and system functions. The processor, memory and system are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions customarily used in computer applications.
Furthermore, the Specification describes a problem and improvement to a business or commercial process at least at [0002], stating:
“Determining whether a loan should be approved is important to many companies. For example, for a company managing retirement accounts, a customer may wish to borrow from one or more of her retirement accounts. Yet, it may be challenging for the company to determine if the requested loan should be approved. In addition, it may be challenging and/or cumbersome for the company to train new employees on how to approve or reject loans.”
The claims are not patent eligible.
For the reasons above, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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 1-9 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claims 1, 13, and 17 are directed to a method (claim 1), an apparatus (claim 13), and a system (claim 17). Therefore, on its face, each independent claim 1, 13, and 17 are directed to a statutory category of invention under Step 1 of the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis (see MPEP 2106.03).
Under Step 2A, Prong One of the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis (see MPEP 2106.04), claims 1, 13, and 17 recite, in part, a method, an apparatus, and a system of organizing human activity. Using the limitations in claim 1 to illustrate, the claim recites a method for loan application evaluation, the method comprising: receiving, via a user, loan application information; receiving user information; analyzing, via a model, the loan application information and the user information to determine at least one loan parameter; determining whether a loan should be approved by inputting the determined at least one loan parameter and not inputting the loan application information determining initial approval based on the determined at least one loan parameter; inputting the initial approval; and receiving, from a domain expert, a domain expert approval or denial; generating, via the model, an explanation of whether the loan should be approved; and presenting the explanation of whether the loan should be approved. The limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers fundamental economic principles or practices and commercial and legal interactions (certain methods of organizing human activity), but for the recitation of generic computer components. The claims as a whole recite a method of organizing human activity. The claimed inventions allows for determining whether to approve a loan based on user data in an application for a loan, which is a fundamental economic principle or practice of mitigating risk and a commercial and legal interaction including sales activities or behaviors. The mere nominal recitation of one or more processors, user device, and an AI/ML model do not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A, Prong Two of the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis (see MPEP 2106.04), the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements of a computer-implemented method; a computer device, the computer device comprising one or more processors; a computer system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory memories having stored thereon computer-executable instructions; artificial intelligence (Al) and/or machine learning (ML)-based evaluation; one or more processors; a user device of a user; an Al and/or ML model; a first smart contract; inputting into a first smart contract; inputting from the first smart contract to a second smart contract; a second smart contract are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer components performing generic computer functions of receiving loan data in a loan application, analyzing the loan application, determining whether to approve the loan) such that it amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g., a computer network).-see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, the combination of 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. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B of the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis (see MPEP 2106.05), the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims have been given the full two part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. Dependent claims 3-9, 11-12, 14, 16, 18, and 20 simply help to define the abstract idea. Dependent claims 2, 15, and 19 simply further describes the technological environment. The additional limitations of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Viewing the claim limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the claim limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1-9 and 11-20 are ineligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20240161184 A1 (“Heglin”) discloses receiving a loan application of a user, extracting a plurality of personal attributes about the user from the loan application, querying a machine learning model via an application programming interface (API) based on the plurality of attributes about the user to identify one or more rules for auto-adjudicating the loan application, determining whether or not to approve the loan application based on the one or more rules identified via the machine learning model, and transmitting notice of the determination to a device associated with the user.
US 20250156942 A1 (“Levy”) discloses a system for an automated loan processing based on borrower-related data. The system including a processor of a lending server node configured to host a machine learning (ML) module and connected to a borrower entity node and to at least one lender entity node over a network and a memory on which are stored machine-readable instructions that when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: acquire borrower data from a borrower entity; parse the borrower data to derive a plurality of features; query a local borrowers' database to retrieve local historical borrowers'-related data based on the plurality of features; generate at least one feature vector based on the plurality of features and the local historical borrowers'-related data; and provide the at least one feature vector to the ML module configured to generate a predictive model for producing at least one lending parameter for generation of the borrower-related lending verdict for the at least one lender entity node.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAVEN E YONO whose telephone number is (313)446-6606. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5PM EST.
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, Bennett M Sigmond can be reached at (303) 297-4411. 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.
/RAVEN E YONO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694