DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a Final Office Action on the merits in response to communications received on 12/18/2025. Claims 2, 4, 6 have been canceled. Claims 1, 3, 7, 10-15, and 21-25 have been amended. Claims 26-28 have been newly added. Therefore, claims 1, 3, 5, 7-15, and 21-28 are pending and have been addressed below. 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
1. 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.
2. Claims 1, 3, 5, 7-15, and 21-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
3. Under Step 1 of the two-part analysis from Alice Corp, Claim 1 recites a machine (i.e., a thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices), Claim 10 recites a manufacture (i.e., "an article that is given a new form, quality, property, or combination through man-made or artificial means."), Claim 21 recites a process (i.e., a series of acts or steps). Thus, each of the claims fall within one of the four statutory categories.
4. Under Step 2A – Prong One of the two-part analysis from Alice Corp, the claimed invention recites an abstract idea.
5. Claims 1, 10, and 21 recite:
“receiving first data associated with a first loan officer and second data associated with a second loan officer, the first data including a current expertise set;”, “determining based at least in part on the first data, at least a first transaction associated with the first loan officer;”, “receiving…a first metric in response to inputting the first transaction and a performance review criteria;”, “determining based at least in part on the second data, at least a second transaction associated with the second loan officer;”, “receiving…a second metric in response to inputting the second transaction and the performance review criteria; generating, based at least in part on first metric and the second metric, a comparison between the first metric associated with the first loan officer and the second metric associated with the second loan officer;”
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations recite an abstract idea for collecting and recognizing certain data related to loan officers which encompasses a fundamental economic practice, i.e., mitigating risks, a commercial interaction, (i.e., marketing or sales activities, business relations), managing personal behavior or interactions (i.e., social activities), and mental processes, (i.e., observations, evaluations, opinions, judgment), that fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes groupings of abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.04
The Applicant’s Specification at [0002] While technology has driven process automation in the mortgage lending industry, business is fueled by strong client relationships. As a result, the entire food chain is largely controlled by the loan officers and the loans they produce.
Consistent with the disclosure the series of steps cover tasks for receiving data associated with expertise of loan officers, determining transaction/metrics data received from the loan officers, generating a comparison report of metrics related to each loan involve concepts that include fundamental economic practices and commercial interactions. The limitations cover tasks for protecting a potential customer against risk before contacting a loan officer and/or tasks a financial institution may perform when monitoring performance or coaching their employees. The limitations of “determining” and “generating” in the context of the claim are mental processes for collecting data and recognizing certain data within the data, which are evaluations that may be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper. For example, a manager could look over loan officer data and compare transactions and performance metrics in his/her mind or with a pen or paper. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
6. Under Step 2A – Prong Two of the two-part analysis from Alice Corp, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of: “a system comprising: at least one processor; a display; a non-transitory machine-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising:”, “from one or more machine learned networks”, “into the one or more machine learned networks”, “graphical user interface that includes at least a graphical”, “the graphical user interface” – see claims 1, 10, and 21 are all recited at a high-level of generality in light of the specification. Thus, because the specification describes the additional elements in general terms without describing the particulars the additional elements may be broadly but reasonably construed as reciting generic computer components performing ordinary computer functions in light of the applicant’s specification. Therefore, the additional elements recited in the claim add the words “apply it” with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer processor as a tool to perform the abstract idea as discussed in MPEP 2106.05 (f).
The other additional element of: “presenting…on the display” adds insignificant extra-solution activity, i.e., data output, to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g).
Thus, the additional claim elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, because the claims do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
7. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of: “a system comprising: at least one processor; a display; a non-transitory machine-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising:”, “from one or more machine learned networks”, “into the one or more machine learned networks”, “graphical user interface that includes at least a graphical”, “the graphical user interface” – see claims 1, 10, and 21 – see claims 1, 10, and 21 at best amounts to nothing more than mere instructions in which to apply the judicial exception and cannot provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
The other additional elements of: “presenting…on the display” were considered insignificant extra-solution activity. Below, the limitation has been re-evaluated to determine whether it is considered well-understood, routine, and/or conventional. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) discusses the Symantec, TLI Communications, and OIP Techs court decisions which indicate “receiving and transmitting data over a network” and “presenting offers and gathering statistics” are well-understood, routine, and/or conventional activities and/or computer functions when they are claimed in a generic manner. Thus, at Step 2B the claim(s) are ineligible.
8. Claims 3, 5, 7-9, 11-15, 22-28 are dependent claims of 1, 10, and 21.
Claim 3 recites “wherein the first data includes a rating of the first loan officer and a satisfaction measure associated with the first loan officer.” which further describes the type of data/information that may be recited within the abstract idea, but does not make the abstract idea any less abstract. Claims 5 and 13 recite “determining a user of the system has permission to view the graphical user interface, prior to presenting the graphical user interface on the display.” which recites steps for authenticating a user that further narrow how the abstract idea may be performed, but do not make the claim any less abstract, claims 7, 14, and 22 recite “wherein the operations further comprise: receiving first additional data associated with the first loan officer and second additional data associated with the second loan officer; generating a first modified metric based at least in part on the first additional data and the first metric; generating a second modified metric based at least in part on the second additional data and the second metric; generating, based at least in part on first modified metric and the second modified metric, a second graphical user interface that includes at least a graphical comparison between the first modified metric associated with the first loan officer and the second modified metric associated with the second loan officer; and presenting the second graphical user interface on the display.” which recites the same abstract idea identified in claim 1 and further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed, but does not make the claim any less abstract, claims 8, 15, and 23 recites “wherein: the operations further comprise: determining a first confidence factor associated with the first data; determining a second confidence factor associated with the second data; and generating the graphical user interface is based at least in part on the first confidence factor and the second confidence factor.” which further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed, but does not make the claim any less abstract, claims 9 and 24 recite “wherein the first confidence factor represents a veracity score associated with the first data.” which further describes the data/information recited in the abstract idea, but does not make the claim any less abstract, claim 11 recite “gathering, via one or more networks, the first data and the second data from one or more data stores.” which further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed, but does not make the claim any less abstract. Here, the additional elements of “one or more data stores” are recited at a high-level of generality and operate in their normal capacity to retrieve and/or store data. See MPEP 2106.05(f) claim 12 recite “wherein the operations further comprise: causing the graphical user interface to be presented on a second display of a user device.” which is recited at a high-level of generality and adds use of generic interface functionality to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(f) claim 25 recites “further comprising: determining a user of the system has permission to view the graphical user interface; and responsive to determining that the user of the system has permission to view the graphical user interface, causing the graphical user interface to be presented on a second display of a user device.” which recites steps for authenticating a user that further narrow how the abstract idea may be performed, but do not make the claim any less abstract., claim 26 recites “wherein receiving the first metric further comprises receiving one or more vectors for the first loan officer, the one or more vectors including a confidence factor, the veracity score, an amount of data associated with the first loan officer collected by the system, and one or more data types associated with the first data” which further describes the type of data/information that may be used within the abstract idea, but does not make the claim any less abstract, claim 27 recites “generating an interview schedule including the first loan officer and the second loan officer based at least in part on the first metric and the second metric; and presenting the interview schedule on the display as part of the graphical user interface that includes at least the graphical comparison between the first metric associated with the first loan officer and the second metric associated with the second loan officer.” which further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed, but does not make the claim any less abstract., claim 28 recites “wherein the graphical user interface includes photographs of the first loan officer, photographs of the second loan officer, expert analysis, estimated compensation for the first loan officer, estimated compensation for the second loan officer, an organization projection including the first loan officer, and an organization projection including the second loan officer” which further describes the type of data or information that may be presented. Here, the graphical user interface operates in its normal capacity and is merely being used as a tool to aid in performing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f) Accordingly, when the limitations above are considered individually and as a whole with the judicial exception, the limitations from the dependent claims fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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.
10. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
11. Claim(s) 1-7, 10-14, 21-22, and 25-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polston (US 2006/0184448 A1) in view of Yoo (US 2015/0006259 A1).
With respect to claims 1, 10, and 21, Polston discloses
a system, one or more machine-readable medium, and method (¶ 0027: discloses computerized system 10) comprising:
at least one processor (¶ 0027: at least one processor);
a display (Fig. 11);
a machine-readable medium (¶ 0027: discloses a computer readable medium) storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising:
receiving first data associated with a first loan officer and second data associated with a second loan officer(¶ 0078-0082, 0091, 0093: discloses the system 10 is designed to monitor the activities of individual users and track statistics associated with specific entities within the hierarchy of the financial institution. The database contains loan officers that are not currently employed by the financial institution but have been selected as recruiting targets by the manager.);
generating, based at least in part on first metric and the second metric, a graphical user interface that includes at least a graphical comparison between the first metric associated with the first loan officer and the second metric associated with the second loan officer (¶ 0088, See at least Fig. 13 and associated text, Loan officer list with calculated metrics such as buyer count, buyer pipeline $ and seller count); and
presenting the graphical user interface on the display. (¶ 0088, See Fig. 11, 502, Lender metrics i.e., loan officers of all institutions are compared with lenders of north division, see ‘This Year vs Last Year’ comparison of Lenders at a financial institution.)
The Polston reference does not explicitly disclose the following limitations.
In the same field of endeavor, the Yoo reference is related to a methods and systems for providing feedback to professionals. (0002-0004)
receiving the first data including a current expertise set (¶ 0034, 0036, 0041, 0049: discloses the profile generator 202 accesses local and remotes databases to retrieve data associated with a professional or entity. The professional is an individual working in a professional services environment such as financial services professional, i.e., bankers. A profiled individual or entity has a level of domain expertise. A level of expertise refers to a level of familiarity with a particular subject.)
determining based at least in part on the first data, at least a first transaction associated with the first loan officer (¶ 0050-0051: discloses the profile generator 202 analyzes accessed data including level of education, user generated data, interaction data to determine what procedures they followed and lifecycle data.); determining based at least in part on the second data, at least a second transaction associated with the second loan officer (¶ 0050-0051: discloses the profile generator 202 analyzes accessed data including level of education, user generated data, interaction data to determine what procedures they followed and lifecycle data.);
receiving from one or more machine learned networks a first metric in response to inputting the first transaction into the one or more machine learned networks (¶ 0043-0044, 0065-0066, 0069-0072, 0089: discloses the prediction engine 208 executes algorithms on the data set. The prediction engine accesses a neural network to generate the prediction. Also, the method includes generating a performance metric for the professional. A performance metric may have any form that allows the performance metric of a first profiled professional to be compared to a second performance metric of a second profiled professional. The analysis engine selects a subset of features to characterize the professional including number/types of cases seen, cases seen or worked on per day);
receiving from the one or more machine learned networks a second metric in response to inputting the second transaction and the performance review criteria into the one or more machine learned networks (¶ 0043-0044, 0065-0066, 0069-0072, 0089: discloses generating a performance metric for the professional. A performance metric may have any form that allows the performance metric of a first profiled professional to be compared to a second performance metric of a second profiled professional. The analysis engine selects a subset of features to characterize the professional including number/types of cases seen, cases seen or worked on per day. The method including generating and comparing a second performance metric generated for a second professional.);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included in Polston’s method and system for recruiting loan officers, the techniques for receiving the first data including a current expertise set; determining based at least in part on the first data, at least a first transaction associated with the first loan officer; determining based at least in part on the second data, at least a second transaction associated with the second loan officer; receiving from one or more machine learned networks a first metric in response to inputting the first transaction into the one or more machine learned networks; receiving from the one or more machine learned networks a second metric in response to inputting the second transaction and the performance review criteria into the one or more machine learned networks, as disclosed by Yoo to achieve the claimed invention. As disclosed by Yoo, the motivation for the combination would have been to provide advantages that enable professionals to understand the heterogeneity in practice styles across their industries and learn from outliers as well as from averages. (¶ 0002-0004)
With respect to claim 11, the combination of Polston and Yoo discloses the one or more non-transitory machine-readable medium,
wherein the operations further comprise:
gathering, via one or more networks, the first data and the second data from one or more data stores. (¶ 0076: Polston discloses the computerized system 10 is provided to multiple lending institutions 300 which represent one or more data stores and maintains the related data for each of the institutions.)
With respect to claim 3, the combination of Polston and Yoo discloses the system of claim 1,
wherein the first data includes a rating of the first loan officer (¶ 0091, 0093: Polston discloses maintains a list of ten potential loan officers. The system is designed to monitor the activities of individual users and to track statistics associated with specific entities within the institution.) and a satisfaction measure associated with the first loan officer. (¶ 0091: Polston discloses the data contains the loan officer’ priority, i.e., hot, warm, cold.)
With respect claim 12, the combination of Polston and Yoo discloses the one or more non-transitory machine-readable medium,
wherein the operations further comprise:
causing the graphical user interface to be presented on a second display of a user device. (¶ 0007, 0101: Polston discloses the organizational chart tool 500 is a useful tool to reach other information about the performance of a financial institution. By clicking on “Lenders” in the organizational chart. The lender list contains for each lender 40, total count of buyers in the system associated with that lender 40, the pipeline amount 20, the count of sellers 30 associated with that lender 40.)
With respect to claims 5 and 13, the combination of Polston and Yoo discloses the system and one or more non-transitory machine-readable medium, wherein the operations further comprise:
determining a user of the system has permission to view the graphical user interface, prior to presenting the graphical user interface on the display. (¶ 0088-0089: Polston discloses the system allows a manager to track the goals directly against real-world values relating to the use of the system. For example, feedback on meeting plan goals can be provided every time a manager logs into the system 10.)
With respect to claims 7, 14, and 22, the combination of Polston and Yoo discloses the system, method, and one or more machine-readable medium, wherein the operations further comprise:
receiving first additional data associated with the first loan officer and second additional data associated with the second loan officer (¶ 0091, 0093: Polston discloses the system 10 is designed to monitor the activities of individual users and to track statistics associated with specific entities.);
generating a first modified metric based at least in part on the first additional data and the first metric (¶ 0104: Polston discloses active lenders recruited and active lender percentages.); generating a second modified metric based at least in part on the second additional data and the second metric (¶ 0104 – see Polston);
generating, based at least in part on first modified metric and the second modified metric, a second graphical user interface that includes at least a graphical comparison between the first modified metric associated with the first loan officer and the second modified metric associated with the second loan officer (¶ 0007, 0101, 0104-0105 – see Polston); and
presenting the second graphical user interface on the display. (¶ 0007, 0101, 0104: Polston discloses the organizational chart tool 500 is a useful tool to reach other information about the performance of a financial institution. By clicking on “Lenders” in the organizational chart. The lender list contains for each lender 40, total count of buyers in the system associated with that lender 40, the pipeline amount 20, the count of sellers 30 associated with that lender 40.)
With respect to claim 25, the combination of Polston and Yoo discloses the method in accordance with claim 21, further comprising:
determining a user of the system has permission to view the graphical user interface (¶ 0088-0089 – see Polston); and responsive to determining that the user of the system has permission to view the graphical user interface, causing the graphical user interface to be presented on a second display of a user device. (¶ 0088-0089: Polston discloses the system allows a manager to track the goals directly against real-world values relating to the use of the system. For example, feedback on meeting plan goals can be provided every time a manager logs into the system 10.)
With respect to claim 26, the combination of Polston and Yoo discloses the system of claim 1,
wherein receiving the first metric further comprises receiving one or more vectors for the first loan officer, the one or more vectors including a confidence factor, the veracity score, an amount of data associated with the first loan officer collected by the system, and one or more data types associated with the first data. (¶ 0069: Yoo discloses a performance metric may be a number and/or category. A performance metric may have any form that allows the performance metric to be compared to a second performance metric.)
With respect to claim 27, the combination of Polston and Yoo discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise:
generating an interview schedule including the first loan officer and the second loan officer (¶ 0092-0093: Polston discloses contact prompting tool 440 is a tool designed to centralize all of the contact responsibilities of the manager. The system manages contacts by tracking when the next contact is due and then prompting the responsible party to make the contact at the appropriate time.) based at least in part on the first metric and the second metric (¶ 0092-0093: Polston discloses the system can automatically trigger certain communications from managers based upon the monitored activities and statistics. A branch manager may be responsible for contacting existing loan officers every week.); and
presenting the interview schedule on the display as part of the graphical user interface that includes at least the graphical comparison between the first metric associated with the first loan officer and the second metric associated with the second loan officer. (¶ 0089-0093: Polston discloses the system presents information and resources to managers through a management portal. There are four tools presented through the management page including loan officer recruiting tool 420 and contact prompting tool 440 for contacts to be made by the manager. Each of the tools can be shown on the main management page with some summary information. Although the tools may be described separately it would be well within the scope of the invention to combine some or all of the information and options into a single common interface. For example, while prompts and prospective loan officer information are shown in the recruiting tool it would be possible to combine this information and prompts within the prompts for contacts tool.)
12. Claim(s) 8-9, 15, 23, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polston in view of Yoo in further view of Bettios (US 2014/0040111 A1).
With respect to claims 8, 15, and 23, the combination of Polston and Yoo discloses the system, method, and one or more non-transitory machine-readable medium,
However, Bettios is related to systems and methods for analyzing loan acquisitions (abstract) and teaches:
wherein: the operations further comprise:
determining a first confidence factor associated with the first data (abstract, ¶ 0032, 0051, 0070: discloses generating a set of scores for the loan based on the set of analysis rules. The set of analysis rules are configured to evaluate the loan, i.e., from a lender originating the loan.); determining a second confidence factor associated with the second data (abstract, ¶ 0032, 0051, 0070: discloses the system may generate detailed findings as well as confidence scores and may prepare a formatted report.); and
generating the graphical user interface is based at least in part on the first confidence factor and the second confidence factor. (¶ 0033, 0070: discloses the system provides access to the findings and scores through a web-based portal.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and methods of Polston and Yoo to have included the ability for determining a first confidence factor associated with the first data; determining a second confidence factor associated with the second data; and generating the graphical user interface is based at least in part on the first confidence factor and the second confidence factor, as disclosed by Bettios, to achieve the claimed invention. As disclosed by Bettios, the motivation for the combination would have been to quickly communicate or flag quality issues to parties. (¶ 0032)
With respect to claims 9 and 24, the combination of Polston, Yoo, and Bettios discloses the system and method,
wherein the first confidence factor represents a veracity score associated with the first data. (¶ 0070: Bettios discloses the set of scores may include a score that corresponds with each analytical rule applied to the loan closing data or with each compliance /risk category. As scoring may associate each rule with a designated score…a red score may indicate one or more errors.)
13. Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polston in view of Yoo in further view of Calman (US 2014/0104372 A1).
With respect to claim 28, Polston discloses the system of claim 1,
wherein the graphical user interface includes the first loan officer and the second loan officer (Figs. 11, 13, ¶ 0073-0074, 0088-0091);
However, Yoo discloses:
wherein the graphical user interface includes (¶ 0048: discloses user interface 310 displays a listing of profiled professionals), expert analysis (¶ 0048: discloses a summary of professional specialties.), estimated compensation for the first loan officer (¶ 0099: discloses identifies a fair market value for compensating a profiled professional), estimated compensation for the second loan officer (¶ 0099: discloses identifies a fair market value for compensating a profiled professional), an organization projection including the first loan officer (¶ 0098: discloses identifies a future match between a professional and an industry opportunity.), and an organization projection including the second loan officer. (¶ 0098: discloses identifies a future match between a professional and an industry opportunity.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed to have modified Polston’s graphical user interface to include information such as expert analysis, estimated compensation for the first loan officer, estimated compensation for the second loan officer, an organization projection including the first loan officer, and an organization projection including the second loan officer to achieve the claimed invention. As disclosed by Yoo, the motivation for the combination would have been to provide advantages that enable professionals to understand the heterogeneity in practice styles across their industries and learn from outliers as well as from averages. (¶ 0002-0004)
The combination of Polston and Yoo does not explicitly disclose the following limitations.
In the same field of endeavor, the Calman reference is related to a system and methods for identifying experts, i.e., financial institution associates, (¶ 0065) and teaches:
wherein the graphical user interface includes photographs of the first loan officer, photographs of the second loan officer (Fig. 7, ¶ 0065-0066: discloses the system is configured to search a database to identify financial institution associates that have work experience dealing with loans. Various different experts 710 are provided to the user. The list of experts in the GUI 700 includes a picture of the loan experts 710. Further a descriptive outline may include a description of expert’s specialties, years of experience, and the like.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed to have modified Polston and Yoo’s graphical user interface to include photographs of the first loan officer, photographs of the second loan officer to achieve the claimed invention. As disclosed by Calman, the motivation for the combination would have been to provide advantages that enable personal connection with one or more financial institution representative who may be able to provide expert advice regarding products. (¶ 0019-0021)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 18 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With Respect to Rejections Under 35 USC 101
Applicant argues “The claims are not 'directed to' an abstract idea The Federal Circuit's decision in Enfish highlights the patent-eligible subject matter of the present claims. In Enfish, the Federal Circuit found that the two-stage Mayo Alice inquiry "plainly contemplates that the first step of the inquiry is a meaningful one, i.e., that a substantial class of claims are not directed to a patent-ineligible concept." Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (emphasis in original). "The 'directed to' inquiry, therefore, cannot simply ask whether the claims involve a patent- ineligible concept, because essentially every routinely patent-eligible claim involving physical products and actions involves a law of nature and/or natural phenomenon - after all, they take place in the physical world." Id. (emphasis in original). "Rather, the 'directed to' inquiry applies a stage-one filter to claims, considered in light of the specification, based on whether 'their character as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter." Id. Furthermore, on January 7, 2019, the Office made available the "2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance" (hereinafter the "2019 Guidance"). The 2019 Guidance made clear that a claim is not "directed to" a judicial exception if the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. 2019 Guidance, p. 13.”
“Applicant asserts that the claims are not 'directed to' an abstract idea because: i) at best, the Office has merely shown the claims may "involve" or "recite" an abstract idea, and the claims integrate the purported judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception in accordance with the 2019 Guidance; ii) the claims satisfy the requirements of McRO (finding that claims are patent-eligible when "[i]t is the incorporation of the claimed rules, not the use of the computer, that improve[s] the existing technological process by allowing the automation of further tasks."); and iii) the claims are similar to the claims in Thales Visionix ("[f]ar from claiming the equations themselves, the claims seek to protect only the application of physics to the unconventional configuration of sensors as disclosed. As such, these claims are not directed to an abstract idea and thus the claim survive Alice step one.").” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Contrary to the remarks, the claims remain ineligible under Step 2A Prong One of the two-part analysis. Here, the applicant’s reply does not properly challenge any of the limitations identified under Prong One from the non-final office action and therefore do not make the claim any less abstract. The cited court decisions in McRo and Thales were directed to specific technological improvements. It is important to note the present claims do not recite any comparable technological improvements as they merely recite applying an abstract idea of collecting and recognizing certain data from loan officers with generic computing components. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “The Office alleges that the claims are directed to the abstract idea of "organizing human activity because the limitations recite processes for collecting and analyzing data related to loan officer candidates." Office Action, p. 4. Without acquiescing that the claims are directed to the alleged abstract idea (or any other abstract idea), Applicant submits that the claims integrate the purported judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception in accordance with the 2019 Guidance at least because the claims include substantial recitations that limit the purported judicial exception in a meaningful and useful way, regardless of whether these recitations represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity.
2019 Guidance, p. 19. Note, the 2019 Guidance explicitly supersedes portions of the MPEP that may be inconsistent with the 2019 Guidance and particularly § 2106.04(11) where it equated claims "reciting" a judicial exception with claims "directed to" a judicial exception, as well as all versions of the Office's "Eligibility Quick Reference Sheet Identifying Abstract Ideas." 2019 Guidance, p. 7. The 2019 Guidance revised Step 2A to make clear that a claim is only "directed to" a judicial exception if the claim recites a judicial exception AND the claim fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that judicial exception. 2019 Guidance, pp. 1-2. In other words, the "claim is not 'directed to' a judicial exception, and thus is patent eligible, if the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of that exception." Id., p. 13.
When a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, "the claim is not directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A: NO) and is eligible. This concludes the eligibility analysis." Id., p. 18 (emphasis added). "[R]evised Step 2A specifically excludes consideration of whether the additional elements represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity." Id., p. 19. In the determination of "whether a judicial exception has been integrated into a practical application," weight should be given to all claim elements in revised Step 2A, regardless of whether the element may be conventional. Id.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Contrary to the remarks, the claimed invention remains ineligible under Step 2A Prong Two of the two-part analysis. Here, the previous guidance issued by the office in 2019 and the specificity of the presently recited techniques in the claim do not automatically confer eligibility. The remarks here make conclusory statements and do not address any of the additional elements considered under Prong Two of the previous office action. The courts have previously held an abstract idea can generally be described at different levels of abstraction. See also - ("[A] claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea." Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016) For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “By way of example, independent claim 1 recites multiple substantive elements not merely directed to the purported abstract idea of "organizing human activity because the limitations recite processes for collecting and analyzing data related to loan officer candidates." For example, independent claims 1 recites "at least one processor; a display; a machine-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising: receiving first data associated with a first loan officer and second data associated with a second loan officer, the first data including a current expertise set; determining based at least in part on the first data, at least a first transaction associated with the first loan officer; receiving from one or more machine learned networks a first metric in response to inputting the first transaction and a review criteria into the one or more machine learned networks; determining based at least in part on the second data, at least a second transaction associated with the second loan officer; receiving from the one or more machine learned networks a second metric in response to inputting the second transaction and the review criteria into the one or more machine learned networks; generating, based at least in part on first metric and the second metric, a graphical user interface that includes at least a graphical comparison between the first metric associated with the first loan officer and the second metric associated with the second loan officer; and presenting the graphical user interface on the display." Independent claims 10 and 21 recite similar features. At least these elements of claim 1 are directed to specific operations integrated into a practical application to solve problems and improve technologies arising in the realm of visualizing metrics associated with loan officers.”
“If the Office ignores claim limitations, it might appear that the claims, at a high level of abstraction, relate to an abstract idea of simply "organizing human activity". However, if the Office ignores at least the features, as described above, applied to achieve a more efficient and effective system of providing on demand content added by the amendments presented herein, and continues describing the claims at such a high level of abstraction and untethered from the language of the claims, the Office all but ensures that the exceptions to Section 101 swallow the rule. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2354 (noting that "we tread carefully in construing this exclusionary principle [of laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas] lest it swallow all of patent law"); cf. Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 189 n12 (1981) (cautioning that overgeneralizing claims, "if carried to its extreme, make[s] all inventions unpatentable because all inventions can be reduced to underlying principles of nature which, once known, make their implementation obvious").”
“The necessary inquiry is not whether the claims "involve" or "recite" collecting and providing feedback information, but whether the claims, as a whole, are "directed to" a judicial exception-they are not. In fact, as described herein, these features of claim 1 recite a specific way to solve a specific technical problem. Thus, the claims are not "directed to" a judicial exception of an abstract idea, even if they "involve" or "recite" an abstract idea consistent with to the Revised Step 2A analysis. Accordingly, Applicant submits that under Revised Step 2A of the analysis, the claims are eligible for patent protection.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Contrary to the remarks, merely restating the limitations as recited in the claim does not indicate a technological solution to a technological problem. For example, the additional elements (i.e., at least one processor; a display; a machine-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising, one or more machine learned networks, a graphical user interface) do not preclude the claim limitations from being in the certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes groupings. The Specification in [¶ 0051-0053] makes clear these additional elements are generic computing components behaving in their ordinary or normal capacity and used to aid in performing the abstract idea. The Specification also in [¶ 0024] discusses the machine learning technology in a generic manner. There are no details or improvements related to using machine learning technology discussed in the specification. At best, the claimed invention solves a business challenge rather than providing a technological solution. The fact that the data evaluations for the loan officers can be performed faster using a computer processor and machine learning in this case does not solve a technological solution to a technical problem. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “Applicant respectfully submits that, even if the claims can somehow be interpreted as being directed to an abstract idea (which Applicant does not concede), the claims contain elements that, when considered in combination and as a whole, amount to "significantly more" than the alleged judicial exception. Moreover, the claims contain substantial elements that, when considered in combination and as a whole, do not preempt others from practicing the purported abstract idea to which the claims are allegedly directed.”
“The Interim Guidelines explain that a claim's limitations "may be enough to qualify as 'significantly more' when recited in a claim with a judicial exception," especially when "improvements to another technology or technical field" are present. The claims should include additional, meaningful features "such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception." Interim Guidelines, p. 74624. The November 2016 USPTO Memo further clarified that "[i]n Step 2B of the USPTO's SME guidance, examiners should consider the additional elements in combination (emphasis in original), as well as individually, when determining whether a claim as a whole amounts to significantly more, as this may be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional elements." November 2016 USPTO Memo, p. 3. When the arrangement of claim limitations listed above are considered in combination and as a whole, the limitations amount to significantly more than the
purported judicial exception at least because they recite a non-conventional and non- generic arrangement of elements. Furthermore, the claims, when considered as an ordered combination and as a whole, recite enough specific limitations to avoid preempting the alleged abstract idea. Therefore, i) the Office has not satisfied its burden under Berkheimer; ii) the claims are similar to the patent-eligible claims at issue in Bascom (finding that the inventive concept, which transforms an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention, may arise in the ordered combination of the limitations); and iii) the claims are sufficiently specific to avoid preempting the alleged abstract idea.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Contrary to the remarks, the ordered combination of limitations as recited in the claim does not lead towards eligibility. Each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. As to the loan officer data operated upon, "even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is 'limited to particular content' or a particular 'source,' that limitation does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract." SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of claim 1 add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. The sequence of data reception-analysis-update processing is equally ordinary and conventional. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (sequence of receiving, selecting, offering for exchange, display, allowing access, and receiving payment recited an abstraction); Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of data
retrieval, analysis, modification, generation, display, and transmission); Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of processing, routing, controlling, and monitoring). The ordering of the steps is therefore a ordinary and conventional. As for preemption, although the extent of preemption is a consideration in the analysis, the absence of complete preemption is not dispositive. See, e.g., Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("While preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility."). “[Q]uestions on preemption are inherent in and resolved by the § 101 analysis," which the Examiner has applied. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “As discussed above, the Office alleges that the claims are directed to "determining whether to allow a request to access content using a local copy that specifies access rights." Office Action, p. 3. However, the MPEP states that "[c]laims do not recite a mental process when they do not contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, for instance when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitations." MPEP, 2106.04(a)(2)III(a). The MPEP gives further guidance on what constitutes not being practically capable of being performed in the human mind including, for example, determination of location from GPS, network activity, encryption protocols, and rendering half-tone images.”
“Similar to those negative examples above, independent claim 1 recites "generating, based at least in part on first metric and the second metric, a graphical user interface that includes at least a graphical comparison between the first metric associated with the first loan officer and the second metric associated with the second loan officer; and presenting the graphical user interface on the display," cannot reasonably or practically be performed by any human being as a mental process.
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)II states that organizing human activity " is limited to activity that falls within the enumerated sub-groupings of fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior, and relationships or interactions between people, and is not to be expanded beyond these enumerated sub-groupings except in rare circumstances as explained in MPEP 2106.04(a)(3)." MPEP, 2106.04(a)(2)II (emphasis added).” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Contrary to the remarks, the claimed invention remains ineligible under Step 2A Prong One of the two-part analysis. Here, applicant is arguing features such as determining whether to allow a request to access content using a local copy that specifies access rights that are not recited in the claim 1. As for the discussion points regarding mental processes, the courts have previously held a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016) Moreover, acquiring and organizing information, as broadly recited by some of the instructions limitations, is an abstract idea, not an improvement in how computers and networks carry out their basic functions. See Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1353-54. And displaying the information which results from that collection and organization, as recited by other instructions limitations, is "abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis." Id. at 1354. The instructions limitations, taken as a whole, are thus abstract. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “The claim limitations cannot merely be looked at individually, but instead the claim limitations must be "considered both individually and as an ordered combination." 2014 Interim Guidelines, p. 20 (emphasis added). In the recently decided case Bascom Global Internet Services, Inc., v. A T&T Mobility LLC ("Bascom"), the Federal Circuit agreed that the limitations of the claims, when taken individually, recite generic computer and internet components, none of which are by themselves inventive. But "the inventive concept inquiry requires more than recognizing that each claim element, by itself, was known in the art," the court said. "As is the case here, an inventive concept can be found in the nonconventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces." The court concluded that the claims, when considered in combination, had an inventive concept of a filtering tool installed at a specific location, remote from the end users, with customizable filtering features specific to each user. This arrangement resulted in an improvement to a particular technological field. Furthermore, the November 2016 USPTO Memo noted how "[t]he Bascom court agreed that the additional elements were generic computer, network and Internet components that did not amount to significantly more when considered individually, but explained that the district court erred by failing to recognize that when combined, an inventive concept may be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of the additional elements." November 2016Memo, p. 3.”
Applicant respectfully submits that the claims at hand, especially when viewed as an ordered combination, are not directed to an abstract idea because the ordered combination of elements improves one or more computer-related technological fields, e.g., intelligent, proactive service scheduling and merchant offerings. Even if one or more components may be conventional when viewed individually, Bascom requires that the claim elements not be viewed individually in assessing the claim's patent eligibility, but rather they must be viewed as whole and as an ordered combination-as a particular arrangement of individual components that operate in a particular way to achieve a particular result. The claims target a specific improvement to the functioning of a computerized system through its ordered combination of elements that includes improved techniques for visualization of large amount of data associated with loan officers, as described herein, thereby allowing users greater accessibility to content.
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that, at least in light of Bascom, the features of claim 1 are not merely directed to an abstract idea where a computing device is utilized as a tool. Rather, the claims recite elements that, by virtue of their ordered combination, improve a computer-related technology. Therefore, Applicant respectfully request that the §101 rejection of the claims be withdrawn.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Contrary to the remarks, the claimed invention remains ineligible and does not provide an inventive concept. The claims in the Bascom decision were directed to a specific technological improvement, whereas the present claims are directed to applying the abstract idea of collecting and recognizing certain data from loan officer data with generic computer components. Here the asserted benefits (such as intelligent, proactive service scheduling and merchant offerings, allowing users greater accessibility to content) are improvements in the abstract idea, not technological improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology field. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
With Respect to Rejections Under 35 USC 103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 7-15, and 21-28 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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 EHRIN PRATT whose telephone number is (571)270-3184. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 EST Monday-Friday.
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, Lynda Jasmin can be reached at 571-272-6782. 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.
/EHRIN L PRATT/Examiner, Art Unit 3629
/JESSICA LEMIEUX/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights