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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The following Non-Final office action is in response to applicant’s RCE with Amendments/Remarks filed on 10/26/2025.
Priority Date: Prov>(01/27/2023)
Claim Status:
Amended claims:1, and 19-20
Pending claims : 1-20
Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
In particular, claims are directed to a judicial exception (Abstract idea) without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, (Step-1) 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. (Step-2A) 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), and if so, (Step-2B) it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Examples of abstract ideas grouping include: (a) Mental processes; (b) Certain methods of organizing human activities [ i. Fundamental Economic Practice; ii. Commercial or Legal Interaction; iii. Managing Personal behavior or Relations between People]; and (c) Mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. (2014).
Claim Analysis is based on the Revised Patent Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG)-(see MPEP § 2106.04(II) and 2106.04(d).
[Step-1] The claims are directed to a method/system/machine, which are a statutory category of invention.
Claim 1 (exemplary) recites a series of steps for Automated Loan authorization.
[Step-2A]-Prong 1:The claim 1 is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception:
The claim recites the limitations to:
receive input data from a user via a protected navigation location through a user … for an application, wherein the application has a set of tasks, wherein the protected navigation location includes a sensitive network location;
determine whether the received input data matches a set of predetermined criteria;
responsive to a determination that the received input data matches the set of predetermined criteria, set one or more user preferences based on the received input data;
display, on an interactive website interface, the set of tasks associated with the application, wherein each of the displayed tasks requires user input; update the website interface based on the user input;
automatically determine whether to accept the application; responsive to a determination to accept the application, send a request amount to an account associated with the application; and
provide a status update for the application to the user ….,wherein the at least one … is configured to, via a browser extension executing on the user device or an external program executing on an administrative device, monitor and record activity of the user through the user … in a secure manner such that only the user … and an administrative … have access to the recorded activity, the activity of the user including at least one of the received input data or the user input.
The claimed system/machine simply describes series of steps for Automated Loan authorization.
These limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations via human commercial or business or transactional activities/interactions, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting one or more servers/processors, devices and computer network nothing in the claim precludes the limitations from practically being performed by organizing human business activity. For example, without the structure elements language, the claim encompasses the activities that can be performed manually between the users and a third party. These limitations are directed to an abstract idea because they are business interaction/sale activity that falls within the enumerated group of “certain methods of organizing human activity” in the 2019 PEG.
[Step-2A]-Prong 2:
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if it is integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional limitation of using one or more servers/processors, devices and computer network to perform the steps. The processor in the steps is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing data. This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. Accordingly, these 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 claim is directed to the abstract idea.
[Step-2B]
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas (whether claim provides inventive concept).
As discussed above, the recitation of the claimed limitations amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a processor (using the processor as a tool to implement the abstract idea). Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the processor at each step of the process performs purely generic computer functions. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. The same analysis applies here, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at or provide an inventive concept.
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the 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 itself. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea, and the claim is not patent eligible. The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention including independent claims 20.
Furthermore, the dependent claims 2-19 do not resolve the issues raised in the independent claims. The dependent claims 2-19 are directed towards:
using the received input data comprises product parameters, contact information, and payment type setup, and wherein the contact information includes an identity of the user, an email address, a telephone number, or a mailing address; the authorization information includes at least one of financial disclosures, legal documentation, tax documentation, or identity verification, and wherein the loan selection information comprises a fixed rate or a variable rate, wherein, responsive to a determination not to accept the application, the operations further comprise: send a notification to the user; and provide for display a user interface allowing the user to edit the application; display, via the website interface, a table with the user's outstanding applications, wherein the interface includes at least one of: an interest due date; an interest rate; an original balance; a current balance; an amortization rate; an amortization due; a maturity date; a last payment; and wherein the account is an authorized bank account, wherein the user may make a pre-payment through the website interface, wherein the applicant submits a new application, wherein the user to apply for a loan extension through the website interface, and wherein the operations further include an automated application amortization schedule through the website interface; and update the website interface based on the user's determined state of residence.
These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and are similarly rejected under same rationale.
Accordingly, the dependent claims 2-19 are rejected as ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. 101 based upon the same analysis.
The instant claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 in view of The Decision in Alice Corporation Ply. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. in a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court held that the patent claims in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. ("Alice Corp. ") are not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathew Englehart et al (US 2016,0162988 A1), in view of Aizikovich (US 11,321,472 B1), and Nacht et al (US 7478064 B1).
Ref claim 1, Englehart discloses a system comprising:
a memory storing a set of instructions; at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to:
receive input data, from a user via a protected navigation location through a user device for an application, wherein the application has a set of tasks, wherein [[the protected navigation location includes a sensitive network location]] (para [0051-53]; FIG. 1; via a system 100/computer devices 101,102, 103, 104/a disclosed method 200. Each buyer 201, loan officer 202/processor 205, F. institution 203…interface 107 to store and communicate purchasing/financing data 204…user data, asset data…,and processing paperwork data…Each computer device 101 may communicate in whole, or in part, via web-sites/network 104 [implied protected navigation location at sensitive network location of network 104]/include web-server …);
determine whether the received input data matches a set of predetermined criteria; responsive to a determination that the received input data matches the set of predetermined criteria, set one or more user preferences based on the received input data (para [0063], FIGS. 2A-2F; via …illustrate a process flow…via interactions between a buyer 201[as the customer] and the system 100; a GUI of the system 100. ..customer information [FIG.2B] and loan information stored within the system 100.[implied matching requirement]…);
display, on an interactive website interface, the set of tasks associated with the application, wherein each of the displayed tasks requires user input; update the website interface based on the user input (para [0008]; via The system/a processor…to generate a GUI and /or other user interface…[0147]; via The system 100…a GUI, other interface, and or website via mobile computer device 101/enlarging interface…);
[[automatically determine whether to accept the application;]]
responsive to a determination to accept the application, send a request amount to an account associated with the application (para [0010]; via establishment of an account between a buyer and the system …[0081]; the method 200 of home mortgage loans/…with the buyer’s 201 account…[0125]; via the loan term and type segment 1002/display information, data amortization term, total loan amount …); and
provide a status update for the application to the user device, wherein the at least one processor is configured to, via a browser extension executing on the user device or an external program executing on an administrative device, monitor and, record activity of the user through the user device in a secure manner such that only the user device and the administrative device have access to the recorded activity, the activity of the user including at least one of the received input data or the user input (para [0031], FIGS. 10A-F…a document panel display…a document status screen display, and an upload history screen display…[0071]; via the system 100 …with users and report to user…and status of those activities [implied loan application status-monitor and record/report to user device 101 in a secure manner]…).
Englehart does not explicitly disclose the step of .the protected navigation location includes a sensitive network location.
However, Aizikovich being in the same field of invention discloses the step of the protected navigation location includes a sensitive network location ( see col 6, lines 56-67, Fig. 1, via System environment or network environment/ a ser 112 on user endpoint device 110…; col. 6, lines 22-35; via User endpoint device 110/user 112 may access a protected navigation location through a browser or other software/any network location deemed sensitive. Activity of the user at the network location may be audited to provide increased accountability for the user. Ex. a protected navigation location may include a particular URL(or URL domain, etc.) a network location internal to an organization or any other sensitive network location [as mentioned in applicant’s specification [0057-58]..).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the features mentioned by Englehart to include the disclosures as taught by Aizikovich to facilitate a sensitive network location for automated loan application-approval process.
Englehart does not explicitly disclose the step of automatically determine whether to accept the application.
However, Nacht being in the same field of invention discloses the step of automatically determine whether to accept the application (Abst. FIG. 1; via a system and process for borrower to obtain a multiple mortgage underwriting approval…Using the mortgage approval application decisions/select which mortgage loan program meets that borrower’s needs…Col. 4, Lines 45-67;; via a borrower can obtain a universal multiple lender industry recognized and accepted borrower specific automated underwriting approval…an online applicant to actually recommending and granting a loan configuration and issuing full universal approval…underwriter approval website…and fund the loan online. ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the features mentioned by Englehart to include the disclosures as taught by Nacht to facilitate automated underwritings loan application-approval.
Ref claims 2-4, Englehart discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the received input data comprises product parameters, contact information, and payment type setup, and wherein the contact information includes an identity of the user, an email address, a telephone number, or a mailing address, and wherein the one or more user preferences include an indication of user types, wherein the user types include at least one of an operational user or an administrative user (para [0051-53]; FIG. 1; via a system 100/computer devices 101,102, 103, 104/a disclosed method 200. Each buyer 201, loan officer 202/processor 205, F. institution 203…interface 107 to store and communicate purchasing/financing data 204…user data, asset data …).
Ref claims 5-6, Englehart discloses the system of claim 4, wherein the one or more user preferences include notification preferences for at least one of: batch applications; denied requests; invoice availability; or a request for required user information, and wherein the notification preferences are set on an incremental time basis for each application, wherein the incremental time basis is at least one of a daily notification, a weekly notification, or a monthly notification (para [0051-53]; FIG. 1; via a system 100/computer devices 101,102, 103, 104/a disclosed method 200. Each buyer 201, loan officer 202/processor 205, F. institution 203…interface 107 to store and communicate purchasing/financing data 204…user data, asset data …).
Ref claims 7-8, Englehart discloses the system of claim 4, wherein the authorization information includes at least one of financial disclosures, legal documentation, tax documentation, or identity verification, and wherein the one or more user preferences include a loan selection, wherein the loan selection comprises a fixed rate or a variable rate (para [0125]; via the loan term and type segment 1002/display information, data amortization term, total loan amount …).
Ref claim 9, Englehart discloses the system of claim 1, wherein, responsive to a determination not to accept the application, the at least one processor is further configured to execute instructions to send a notification to the user; and provide for display a user interface allowing the user to edit the application (para [0031], FIGS. 10A-F…a document panel display…a document status screen display, and an upload history screen display…[0071]; via the system 100 …with users and report to user…and status of those activities [implied loan application status to user device]…).
Ref claim 10, Englehart discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute instructions to display, via the website interface, a table with outstanding applications associated with the user, wherein the interface includes at least one of: an interest due date; an interest rate; an original balance; a current balance; an amortization rate; an amortization due; a maturity date; a last payment date; a last payment amount; a next payment amount; or a next payment date (para [0031], FIGS. 10A-F…a document panel display…a document status screen display, and an upload history screen display…[0071]; via the system 100 …with users and report to user…and status of those activities [implied loan application status to user device]…).
Ref claims 11-15, Englehart discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the account is an authorized bank account, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute instructions to: permit the user to make a pre-payment through the website interface, wherein the wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute instructions to: permit the user to submit a new application through the website interface. wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute instructions to: permit the user to apply for a loan extension through the website interface. and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute instructions to: permit the user to apply for a loan extension through the website interface (para [0008]; via The system/a processor…to generate a GUI and /or other user interface…[0147]; via The system 100…a GUI, other interface, and or website via mobile computer device 101/enlarging interface…).
Ref claims 16-19, Englehart discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute instructions to: route the application for an automatic Know Your Customer (KYC) and Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) check, and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to generate automated statements, wherein at least one processor is further configured to: determine in which state the user resides; and update the website interface based on the user's determined state of residence, and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: responsive to a determination that the user is a Florida resident, require Florida stamp tax forms and information (para [0103]; via Profile information 608 include data, a name of the user, contact information of a user, etc.[implied user residing states], …an estimate closing date of a home being purchase by a user…).
Claim 20 recites similar limitations to claim 1 and thus rejected using the same art and rationale in the rejection of claim 1 as set forth above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 10/17/2025 have been fully considered and they are deemed to be non-persuasive:
Response to Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejection is addressed in the above rejection.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection of the previous action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues further in substance that "The claims are Not Directed to an Abstract Idea and the claims Recite ‘Significantly More’ than abstract idea” and noted PEG-2019 [Step-2A-Prong One-Prong two-2B].
Applicant also cited analogy with the court cases such as, McRO, Court Exs.
In addition to 101 rejections Applicant noted about 103 rejections with applied prior arts.
In response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Updated claim analysis as a whole including amended features are provided above/again based on the latest Patent Eligibility Guidance [2019-PEG>Step 2A-Prong 1 & Prong 2-Step-2B].
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more. The rejection of the previous action was a direct result of the Supreme Court's decision in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd v. CLS Bank I'ntl. 573 U.S. (2014); Under Alice.
APPLICANT’s REMARKS:
I. Status of the Claims:
“In the Office Action dated August 18, 2025 ("Office Action")1, the Office: …;…;
Upon entry of this Amendment, claims 1-20 will remain pending, of which claims
1 and 20 are independent. Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejections, and timely allowance of the pending claims for at least the reasons set forth below.”
II. § 101 of Rejection of Claims 1-20:
“Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C.§ 101 as allegedly being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claims do not recite a judicial exception under Step 2A, Prong One
Applicant respectfully submits that the claims do not recite a judicial exception under Step 2A, Prong One, and are therefore patent-eligible. …;…;
The claims integrate any alleged judicial exception into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two …;…;
When performing this evaluation, examiners should be “careful to avoid oversimplifying the claims” by looking at them generally and failing to account for the specific requirements of the claims. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313, 120 USPQ2d at 1100. (Emphases added).
For the reasons above, Applicant's claims integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application and are, therefore, patent-eligible under Prong Two of revised Step 2A. For at least this additional reason, the present claims are not directed to an abstract idea and the § 101 rejection should be withdrawn.
C. The claims recite significantly more under Step 2B
“As described above, Applicant's claims are not directed to an abstract idea, and the claims are patent-eligible without needing to reach the "significantly more" inquiry under Step 2B. Nevertheless, Applicant notes that the claims also amount to "significantly more" than any alleged "abstract idea," and the Office has not shown otherwise. …;…;…;
In view of the foregoing, amended claim 1 recites "significantly more" than the alleged abstract idea and for this additional reason is patent eligible….;…; Accordingly, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 should be withdrawn.”
IN RESPONSE: Examiner Disagrees:
Under Alice-Step (2A)-Prong 1: A method for deriving financial information from automatic online Loan authorization system is akin to the abstract idea subject matter grouping of:
(Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity as ‘Fundamental economic practice to Managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including, teaching, and following rules or instructions). As such, the claims include an abstract idea. The specific limitations of the invention are identified to encompass the abstract idea include:
(to receive input data from a user via a protected navigation location through a user … for an application,…a set of tasks,…a sensitive network location; determine whether the received input data matches a set of predetermined criteria; …on the received input data; display, …the displayed tasks requires user input; update the website interface based on the user input; automatically determine whether to accept the application; …, send a request amount to an account associated with the application; and provide a status update for the application to the user ….,wherein … is configured to, via a browser…, monitor and record activity of the user through the user … in a secure manner such that only the user … and …, input data or the user input.)
As stated above, this abstract idea falls into the subject matter grouping (b) of: (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity as ‘Fundamental economic practice to Managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions’).
Under Alice-Step (2A)-Prong 2: When considered individually and in combination, the instant claims do not integrate the exception into a practical application because the steps to:
receive input data from a user via a protected navigation location through a user … for an application,…a set of tasks…a sensitive network location; determine whether the received input data matches a set of predetermined criteria; …on the received input data; display, …the displayed tasks requires user input; update the website interface based on the user input; automatically determine whether to accept the application; …, send a request amount to an account associated with the application; and provide a status update for the application to the user ….,wherein … is configured to, via a browser…, monitor and record activity of the user through the user … in a secure manner such that only the user … and …, input data or the user input.,
do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception (i.e. the abstract idea).
The instant recited claims including additional elements (i.e. “ to receive input data…;determine….; display,…; send a request…;…input data or the user input.”),
do not improve the functioning of the computer or improve another technology or technical field nor do they recite meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The limitations merely use a generic computing technology (Specification [0021]: processor, memory, instructions, storage medium, and electrical communication) as tools to perform an abstract idea or merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. (MPEP § 2106.05 (f) (g)). Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Under Alice-Step (2B): Additionally, the claims 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 (Claims: e.g., processor, machine learning, equations, instructions, memory, electrical communication, and storage medium) amount to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or merely using generic components as tool to perform an abstract idea. In conclusion, merely “linking/applying” the exception using generic computer components does not constitute ‘significantly more’ than the abstract idea. (MPEP § 2106.05 (f) (h)). Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Applicant’s citation of McRo is non-persuasive because the claims at issue in McRo are readily distinguishable over the instant claims. In McRO, the Federal Circuit held the claimed methods of automatic lip synchronization and facial expression animation using computer-implemented rules patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101, because they were not directed to an abstract idea. The basis for the McRO court's decision was that the claims were directed to an improvement in computer-related technology (allowing computers to produce "accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters" that previously could only be produced by human animators), and thus did not recite a concept similar to previously identified abstract ideas. In McRO, timing phonemes in milliseconds represents both the problem being solved and the inventive solution. On the other hand, timing in the instant application represents nothing more than a sequence of events that occur time – a feature common to most process/method patent applications. The timing is not critical to accomplishing the process. For example, a few second delay in a network transmission will not materially affect the outcome of the ordered combination of method steps. Timing is not a problem introduced by the technology itself or arising in the realm of computer networks that the instant application seeks to solve...”
In contrast, the instant claims provide a generically computer-implemented solution to a business-related or economic problem and are thus incomparable to the claims at issue in McRO.
What Applicant describes here is how any generic computer process data without stating how or if this transformation is intended to, in some way improves the function of the computer itself.
Examiner notes that the computer processor limitations and the claim as a whole do not add significantly more than the abstract idea itself, because the claim does not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself; and the claim does not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. A generic recitation of a device performing its generic computer functions does not make the claims less abstract.
A generic recitation of a computer processor performing its generic computer functions does not make the claims less abstract. Examiner notes that the instant claims provide a generically computer-implemented solution to a business-related or economic problem. The focus of the claimed invention in the present is not on an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools. The claims here are not directed to a specific improvement to computer functionality nor an inventive solution to any computer specific problem. Also, limiting the use of an abstract idea “‘to a particular technological environment’ does not confer patent eligibility as this cannot be considered an improvement to computer or technology and so cannot be “significantly more.”
III. § 103 Rejection:
“Applicant respectfully traverses the rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over Englehart in view of Nacht. …;
…;…;…;…;
Here, no prima facie case of obviousness has been established for at least the reason that the Office has not properly ascertained the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art. Accordingly, the Office has failed to clearly articulate a reason why the prior art would have rendered the claimed invention obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. …;…;
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are allowable, and Applicant respectfully requests the withdrawal of the rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.”
IN RESPONSE: Examiner Disagrees with Applicant’s assertions:
However, Englehart in views of Aizikovich [new art], and Nacht disclose [obviously] all limitations including amended elements, such as via Englehart (para [0051-53]; FIG. 1; via a system 100/computer devices 101,102, 103, 104/a disclosed method 200. Each buyer 201, loan officer 202/processor 205, F. institution 203…interface 107 to store and communicate purchasing/financing data 204…user data, asset data…,and processing paperwork data…Each computer device 101 may communicate in whole, or in part, via web-sites/network 104 [implied protected navigation location at network location]/include web-server … [0031], FIGS. 10A-F…a document panel display…a document status screen display, and an upload history screen display…[0071]; via the system 100 …with users and report to user…and status of those activities [implied loan application status-monitor and record/report to user device 101 in a secure manner]…);
via Aizikovich being in the same field of invention discloses the step of the protected navigation location includes a sensitive network location ( see col 6, lines 56-67, Fig. 1, via System environment or network environment/ a user 112 on user endpoint device 110…; col. 6, lines 22-35; via User endpoint device 110/user 112 may access a protected navigation location through a browser or other software/any network location deemed sensitive. Activity of the user at the network location may be audited to provide increased accountability for the user. Ex. a protected navigation location may include a particular URL(or URL domain, etc.) a network location internal to an organization or any other sensitive network location [as mentioned in applicant’s specification [0057-58]..); and
via Nacht being in the same field of invention discloses the step of automatically determine whether to accept the application (Abst. FIG. 1; via a system and process for borrower to obtain a multiple mortgage underwriting approval…Using the mortgage approval application decisions/select which mortgage loan program meets that borrower’s needs…Col. 4, Lines 45-67;; via a borrower can obtain a universal multiple lender industry recognized and accepted borrower specific automated underwriting approval…an online applicant to actually recommending and granting a loan configuration and issuing full universal approval…underwriter approval website…and fund the loan online).
Moreover, with regards to applicant's argument that no prima facie case of obviousness has been established for at least the reason that the Office has not properly ascertained the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art.
Examiner disagrees:
For purposes of 35 U.S.C. 103, prior art can be either in the field of applicant' s endeavor or be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned. Furthermore, prior art that is in a field of endeavor other than that of the applicant, or solves a problem which is different from that which the applicant was trying to solve, may also be considered for the purposes of 35 U.S.C. 103. The Court in KSR stated that ‘‘[t]he first error … in this case was … holding that courts and patent examiners should look only to the problem the patentee was trying to solve. The Court of Appeals failed to recognize that the problem motivating the patentee may be only one of many addressed by the patent's subject matter …. The second error [was] … that a person of ordinary skill attempting to solve a problem will be led only to those elements of prior art designed to solve the same problem.' '550 U.S. at l, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. Federal Circuit case law prior to the Supreme Court's decision in KSR is generally in accord with these statements by the KSR Court. See, e.g., In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 693, 16 USPQ2d 1897, 1901 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (en banc) (‘‘[I]t is not necessary in order to establish a prima facie case of obviousness that both a structural similarity between a claimed and prior art compound (or a key component of a composition) be shown and that there be a suggestion in or expectation from the prior art that the claimed compound or composition will have the same or a similar utility as one newly discovered by applicant.)
CONCLUSION
The prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Taylor et al (US 11138599 B1) discloses Network Data Management and Data Security.
Tucker et al (US 2021/0150624 A1) discloses Intelligent Population of Interface Elements for Converting Transactions.
Bradley et al (US 2014/0282153 A1) discloses Customizable Data Management System.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HATEM M. ALI whose telephone number is (571) 270-3021, E-mail: Hatem.Ali@USPTO.Gov and FAX (571)270-4021. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, 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, ABHISHEK VYAS can be reached on (571) 270-1836. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HATEM M ALI/
Examiner, Art Unit 3691