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
This Final office action is in response to the application filed on November 15, 2023, the amendments to the claims filed on July 25, 2025, the Request for Continued Examination filed on October 13, 2025, and the amendments to the claims filed January 29, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The 35 USC 112b rejection of record has been withdrawn in view of the amendments to the claims.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 5, 8, 10, 14, 17, and 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The recitation, “adjusting, by the at least one processor via the AI-ML model, the task procedure in real time by leveraging instantaneous data including at least one from among a change in condition, a change in volume, and a change in market rule, and wherein the AI-ML model is trained by historical loan origination application information” in lines 32-35 of claim 1, similarly recited in claims 10 and 19, is not supported by the specification.
While there is support for updating the AI algorithm, “The method may further include updating the AI algorithm by integrating information that relates to at least one from among a real time insight, a change of a condition, a change of a volume, and a change of a market rule with respect to the loan origination application[.]” in paragraph [0013] of the specification and support for the, “AI/ML model facilitates the leveraging of real time insights and an ability to adjust strategy under changing conditions, changing volumes, changes in market rules, and with respect to decisions to be made between deals” in paragraph [0074] of the specification, this is not commensurate with the scope of the claim language and fails to provide support for, “adjusting, by the at least one processor via the AI-ML model, the task procedure”. Further, the specification is silent in regards to anything occurring “instantaneous”.
Claims 5, 8, 14, and 17 are considered rejected by virtue of their dependencies. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 5, 8, 10, 14, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 5, 8, 10, 14, 17, and 19 are directed to a system, method, or product which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified independent method Claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent apparatus Claim 10 and product Claim 19. Claim 1 recites the limitations of receiving, by the at least one processor, first information that relates to a first loan origination application, wherein the first information includes at least one from among an identification of a customer, information that relates to a financial condition of the customer, information that relates to a cost of an object to be purchased by the customer, a geographic location that relates to the customer, and a date, weekday, and time at which the first loan origination application is received; obtaining, by the at least one processor from the first information, a respective value for each of a plurality of predetermined parameters, wherein the plurality of predetermined parameters includes at least one from among a prioritization parameter that indicates a degree of commercial value of the first loan origination application, a merchant parameter that relates to a merchant associated with the first loan origination application, and a geographical location parameter that relates to a degree of importance of the geographic location that relates to the customer; retrieving, by the at least one processor, second information that relates to at least one candidate underwriter, wherein the second information includes at least one from among an availability of the at least one candidate underwriter, interaction information that relates to at least one previous interaction between the merchant associated with the first loan origination application and the at least one candidate underwriter, and efficiency information that indicates at least one from among a speed and a degree of success of the at least one candidate underwriter in processing previous loan origination applications; generating, by the at least one processor via an artificial intelligence (AI) machine learning (ML) model and based on the values of the parameters and the second information, a task procedure for processing the first loan origination application, the task procedure including an identification of a target underwriter from among the at least one candidate underwriter and at least one requirement that relates to a projected completion of the processing of the first loan origination application, adjusting, by the at least one processor via the AI-ML model, the task procedure in real time by leveraging instantaneous data including at least one from among a change in condition, a change in volume, and a change in market rule, and wherein the AI-ML model is trained by historical loan origination application information; generating, by the at least one processor via the AI-ML model, loan origination application selection criteria, wherein the loan origination application selection criteria include candidate underwriter rankings, customer requirements prioritization, and processing requirements efficiency; identifying, by the at least one processor via the AI-ML model and based on the generated loan origination application selection criteria, a target underwriter for handling the first loan origination application and a prioritization requirement for handling the first loan origination application; routing, by the at least one processor via the AI-ML model, the task procedure to the target underwriter based on the values of the parameters and the second information, wherein the routing is based on an expectation that additional loan origination applications are to be received; indexing, the at least one processor via the AI-ML model, the task procedure based on predetermined indexing rules and the AI-ML model; prioritizing, the at least one processor via the AI-ML model, the task procedure based on predetermine prioritization rules and the AI-ML model; transmitting, by the at least one processor to the target underwriter, a request message that includes the first information and the task procedure, wherein the transmitting is based on a result of the indexing and a result of the prioritizing; and receiving, from the target underwriter, a confirmation message that includes a confirmation that the task procedure is acceptable.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Routing a loan origination application recites a fundamental economic practice/commercial or legal interactions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic practice/commercial or legal interactions, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The at least one processor in Claim 1 and a processor and memory in Claim 10 is just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. It is noted that the processor of Claim 19 is only recited in the preamble and not positively recited within the body of the claim. The AI-ML model in claims 1, 10, and 19 and communication interface in Claim 10 appears to be just software. Claims 10 and 19 are also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite at least one processor in Claim 1 and a processor and memory in Claim 10 and AI-ML model in claims 1, 10, and 19 and communication interface in Claim 10. The computer hardware is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore claims 1, 10, and 19 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See Applicant’s specification para. [0037-0039, 0042-0045, 0053] about implementation using general purpose or special purpose computing devices and MPEP 2106.05(f)&(h) where applying a computer as a tool is not indicative of significantly more. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus claims 1, 10, and 19 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims 5, 8, 14, and 17 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1, 10, and 19 and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. Claims 5 & 14 further include projected completion of processing the first loan application; Claims 8 & 17 further includes the use, training, and configuration of the AI-ML model. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the claims 5, 8, 9, 14, and 17 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1, 5, 8, 10, 14, 17, and 19 are not patent-eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant' s arguments with respect to claims 1, 5, 8, 10, 14, 17, and 19 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the current rejection.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 USC 101 rejection of record (Remarks, pages 13-16) are acknowledged, however they are not persuasive. Specifically, applicant argues that the claims are integrated into a practical application and, “solve problems in current computer technology” citing paragraph [0004] of the instant specification (Remarks, pages 13-15). However, paragraph [0004] of the specification sets forth that the problems in routing loan origination applications do not lie within the technology but rather with the manual, non-technological process of routing applications, “most loan origination applications are handled manually, because the specific details of each loan origination application may be important in determining which applications should be routed to which underwriters and in which order. This manual process tends to be relatively expensive and may also be subject to delays that could lead to a lost opportunity to obtain the business.” Therefore, the claims do not purport to have a technological solution to a technological problem but rather the focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools.
Applicant’s arguments that the claims are similar to claim 1 of Example 42, and therefore provide a practical integration of the abstract idea (Remarks, page 14), are acknowledged, however they are not found persuasive. Specifically, applicant's arguments try to establish eligibility through Office Examples, however the Office Examples are meant to be for training purposes and do not have the force of legal precedent. Further, claim 1 of Example 42 is found to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because: “The claim recites a combination of additional elements including storing information, providing remote access over a network, converting updated information that was input by a user in a non-standardized form to a standardized format, automatically generating a message whenever updated information is stored, and transmitting the message to all of the users. The claim as a whole integrates the method of organizing human activity into a practical application. Specifically, the additional elements recite a specific improvement over prior art systems by allowing remote users to share information in real time in a standardized format regardless of the format in which the information was input by the user. Thus, the claim is eligible because it is not directed to the recited judicial exception (abstract idea).” (Subject Matter Eligibility Examples: Abstract Ideas, pages 18-19). The current claims do not standardize a format, automatically generate a message, or transmit a message to all users. Instead the instant claims perform the abstract idea of routing a loan origination application. Therefore, Example 42 does not apply.
Applicant's arguments try to establish eligibility through Office Examples (Remarks, page 14), are not persuasive. Specifically, the Office Examples are meant to be for training purposes and do not have the force of legal precedent. Further, Example 47 is directed towards the use of specifically trained ANNs to detect anomalies and is found to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because:
“The claimed invention reflects this improvement in the technical field of network intrusion detection. Steps (d)-(f) provide for improved network security using the information from the detection to enhance security by taking proactive measures to remediate the danger by detecting the source address associated with the potentially malicious packets. Specifically, the claim reflects the improvement in step (d), dropping potentially malicious packets in step (e), and blocking future traffic from the source address in step (f). These steps reflect the improvement 12 described in the background. Thus, the claim as a whole integrates the judicial exception into a practical application such that the claim is not directed to the judicial exception.
The current claims do not improve the functioning of a computer or technical filed of network intrusion. Instead, the instant claims perform the abstract idea of routing a loan origination application. Therefore, Example 47 does not apply.
Applicant’s arguments that the amended claims recite “significantly more” than an abstract idea (Remarks, page 15), are acknowledged. However, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more to the exception. The additional element of using a computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, which cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f) where applying a computer as a tool is not indicative of significantly more. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Applicant’s arguments that the amended claims are not directed to an abstract idea (Remarks, pages 15-16) are acknowledged, however they are not persuasive. Specifically, the claims are directed towards loan origination application routing and prioritization. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic practice/commercial or legal interactions, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. In the claimed invention, the computer has not been improved. The non-technological process that the software is performing may have been improved but, according to Alice, improving the process without any technological innovation is not statutory. The computer still operates according to its known and standard capabilities.
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 LINDSAY M MAGUIRE whose telephone number is (571)272-6039. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:30 to 5:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anita Coupe can be reached at (571) 270-3614. 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.
Lindsay Maguire
2/12/26
/LINDSAY M MAGUIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619