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
Claims 20-29 were pending. In an amendment of 1/26/26 applicant has canceled claims 11-17, 20-23 and 25-29. Thus claims 10, 18, 19 and 24 are pending and also amended. After careful consideration of applicants arguments and amendments, the examiner finds them to be persuasive in view of the art of record but not persuasive in regards to 35 USC 101.
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 10,18, 19,24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because
They are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Here claims 10, 19 and 24 are independent claims and each are method claims which are correct classes of invention.
Claim 10 is used as the representative claim.
Here the limitations under their broadest reasonable interpretation cover the performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. The creation of loans on a computer is a fundamental economic practice.
The abstract elements include;
receiving, from a … associated with a particular borrower or a … associated with a merchant, (i) preliminary borrower information relating to the particular borrower, the preliminary borrower information including geolocation data indicative of a location of the … associated with the particular borrower and (ii) requested financing plan information relating to a financing plan as requested by the particular borrower; receiving, from a first third party, results of a merchant credentialing process, the results comprising merchant fraud risk information and a creditworthiness of the merchant to allow the merchant to offer the requested financing plan included in the requested financing plan information, outputting to a second third party, (i) the preliminary borrower information relating to the particular borrower and (ii) the requested financing plan information relating to the financing plan as requested by the particular borrower; receiving from the second third party results of a pre-approval process, the pre-approval process based at least in part on the location of the … associated with the particular borrower, the results of the pre-approval process including data indicative of a decision to approve or deny the requested financing plan; and outputting, for delivery to the … associated with the particular borrower or the computing device associated with the merchant, an indication of the decision to approve or deny the requested financing plan.
By amendment,
outputting, for delivery to the … associated with the particular borrower or the … associated with the merchant, a request for additional borrower information relating to the particular borrower; receiving, from the … associated with the particular borrower or … associated with the merchant, the additional borrower information relating to the particular borrower; outputting, for delivery to at least … associated with at least one lender, at least one selected from a group consisting of (i) at least a portion of the preliminary borrower information relating to the particular borrower, (ii) at least outputting, for delivery to the … associated with the particular borrower or the … associated with the merchant, a confirmation that at least one selected from the group consisting of (i) at least a portion of the preliminary borrower information relating to the particular borrower, (ii) at least a portion of the additional borrower information relating to the particular borrower, and (iii) the requested financing plan information was sent to at least one computing device associated with at least one lender;
Here the non abstract elements are “computing device”(s) of the borrower, the merchant etc.
If a claim limitation under it’s broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic practice then it falls within methods organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude a claim from reciting an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the additional elements of computers. The use of a generic computer to conduct a business transaction amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. Thus, the claims are not integrated into a practical application. There are insufficient elements to amount to significantly more known as “inventive concept”
The dependent claims 11-18,20-23,25-29 do not include further elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus the claims 10-29 are not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Claims 20-29 were pending. In an amendment of 1/26/26 applicant has canceled claims 11-17, 20-23 and 25-29. Thus claims 10, 18, 19 and 24 are pending and also amended. After careful consideration of applicants arguments and amendments, the examiner finds them to be persuasive in view of the art of record but not persuasive in regards to 35 USC 101.
In regards to the art of record, applicant has created a set of claims that would justify the removal of art in view of the parent application which is of similar breadth. Applicant has essentially rolled up content from claims 14-17 into claim 10 would overcome the art.
In regards to 35 USC 101;
Here the grounds of rejection under current interpretation of 35 USC 101 certain methods of organizing human activity may include commercial or legal interactions and further fundamental economic practices such as lending. The attachment of generic computers to these elements may not be persuasive. In regards to ex Parte Fanaru which is argued, the argued elements are different but, on review of Fanaru, the examiner could identify various types of devices and alteration of the computer system to at some level improve the storage of data for example. Here the court held that “collecting usage information” was not a mathematical concept. However, the decision in Fanaru does not weigh in on fundamental economic practice as the elements addressed are more directed to data storage.
In regards to practical application, the examiner agrees that the application is of limited scope based on the art. However, practice application of technology might not be enough.
Applicant argues “GPS technology” on page 11 of the argument. However, on review of the claims GPS is not literally claimed. While location is utilized in the context of geolocation data. The applicant uses indicative and based on the location of the computing device of the borrow. However, there is no inquiry of the user device to determine where the borrower is. Likewise the specification does not indicate that the invention is directed to improving locational of the borrower, ie inventive concept.
Here the claims recite a specific preapproval that utilizes the physical location of the borrowers device….. as argued by the applicant. However, as pointed out by the examiner the argued GPS elements are not specifically based on querying the GPS locator of the user device.
However, on review of claim 10 as was indicated previously, the references to geolocation information are prefaced “including geolocation indicative of a location”. The step of retrieving the GPS information from the phone and sending it to the merchant computer is not claimed. Likewise “outputting for delivery…” and “based at least in part on the location of the computing device associated with the particular borrower” may not be enough of a link from the computer technology to the loan.
If applicant used geolocation information to validate the user to prevent fraud and this was the inventive concept then applicant might be persuasive.
Thus applicant arguments re: geolocation and unclaimed “GPS” are not persuasive because they do not integrate the inventive concepts of security or locational accuracy based on the computer into the process. However, if applicant could integrate the GPS as a technological improvement to avoid fraud, this argument would be more persuasive.
In regards to the art of record, the examiner has withdrawn the art in view of amendment. While
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Open Banking: Definition and Description IEEE 2021
Top of Form
Bottom of Form
Blockchain-Based Financial Technologies and Cryptocurrencies for Low-Income People: Technical Potential Versus Practical Reality (IEEE 2020)
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 BRUCE I EBERSMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3442. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am - 5:00 pm 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, Michael W Anderson can be reached at 571-270-0508. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRUCE I EBERSMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693