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 present invention application contains 20 claims. Claims 1, 11 and 15 are independent. Claims 1-20 are examined and rejected by the following detail action.
Examiner Notes
The prior art rejections below cite particular paragraphs, columns, and/or line numbers in the references for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1, 4-5, 9-10, 15, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bloomquist et al. (“Bloomquist”, US Patent 7089503 B1) in view of Crawley (US PG-Pub. 2020/0005393 A1).
Re-claim 1,
Bloomquist teaches a computing system for customized graphical user interface access graphically depicting at least one icon, comprising:
at least one processor; a communication interface communicatively coupled to the at least one processor; and a memory device storing executable code (Fig. 1, col. 3 lines [49-55]. Bloomquist describes the computer system 10 having the loan originator’s or borrower’s computer device 24 or 26 which has at least a processor, a memory device and a communication interface to connect with the remote server 20 on the lender side to access the loan service) that, when executed, causes the at least one processor to:
receive, via a graphical user interface, and process input data of one or more inputs indicating a user's need for an entity object accessible via an entity, wherein the one or more inputs are provided based on the user selecting one or more user interface input components depicted via the graphical user interface, wherein the entity object is to be personalized for the user (Figs. 3A, 5-7, 9, col. 4 lines [23-65]. Bloomquist describe the loan application process to collect the borrower information, mortgage needs, financial goals, type of loan, etc. via user input data via a graphical user interface shown in Figs. 9 and 5-7);
transmit, across a network and from the computing device to a backend system, a request for the entity object (Fig. 1, col. 3 lines [49-55]. Bloomquist describes the loan application data input on borrower side (i.e. device 26) are transmitted to the lender side (i.e. server 20) to request for the available loans based on the input information);
receive, via the network from the backend system, at least two personalized entity object options available to the user, wherein each of the at least two personalized entity objects comprise respective object attributes customized based on user data of the user (Figs. 3A, 8, col. 9 lines [40-44]. Bloomquist describe the list of customized mortgage products (i.e. entity object options) with the respective object attributes (i.e. interest rate, loan term, etc.) are presented to the potential borrowers shown in Fig. 8);
display, via the graphical user interface, two or more of the at least two personalized entity objects each comprising the at least one graphical icon for user customization, at least one of the displayed two or more personalized entity objects appearing visually differentiated from any other displayed entity objects (Figs. 3A, 8, col. 9 lines [40-44]. Bloomquist describe the list of customized mortgage/loan products (i.e. entity object options) with the respective object attributes (i.e. interest rate, loan term, etc.) are presented and appearing visually differentiated from other mortgage/loan by the type of mortgage/loan shown in Fig. 8);
receive, via the user device, one or more user inputs to populate one or more documents required to apply for a desired entity object of the at least two personalized entity objects (Fig. 3A, col. 8 lines [6-11]. Bloomquist describe the process to access and revise the information and/or requirement data to obtain the a desired mortgage/loan product shown in step 54);
transmit, via the network to the backend system, user input data of the one or more user inputs (Figs. 1, 3A, col. 3 lines [49-55]. Bloomquist describes the loan requirement data input at step 54 on borrower side (i.e. device 26) are transmitted to the lender side (i.e. server 20) to obtain a desired loan product based on the input information); and
receive, from the backend system via the network, an electronic communication for the user to electronically accept terms for the desired entity object (Figs. 3A, 4, col. 10 lines [9-17]. Bloomquist describe the electronic communication process to lock in the loan rate and term for a customized loan selected and accepted by user or borrower shown in step 70).
Bloomquist fails to teach:
receive, from the backend system via the network, and display, via the graphical user interface, an electronic communication for the user to electronically sign and accept terms for the desired entity object.
However, Crawley teaches:
receive, from the backend system via the network, and display, via the graphical user interface, an electronic communication for the user to electronically sign and accept terms for the desired entity object (Fig. 19, [0041]. Crawley describes “…An application is moved to a status of Doc Signed when the customer indicates they accept the loan terms and has signed the loan agreement…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the loan application process teachings of Bloomquist with the loan application electronically commitment signature via the graphical user interface teaching of Crawley to streamline the loan process and lowering costs in term of processing time and materials.
Re-claim 4,
in addition to what Bloomquist-Crawley teaches the system in claim 1, Bloomquist also teaches the system, wherein the one or more documents are prepopulated by the backend system with a product type and one or more user-selected attributes of the object attributes customized based on the user data of the user (Figs. 1, 3A, col. 7 lines [47-54], col. 8 lines [12-21]. Bloomquist describe the customized loan product recommendations are determined and populated by the lender side back-end or secondary mortgage market server 12 with the product type and user-selected attributed shown in steps 48, 50 and 52).
Re-claim 5,
in addition to what Bloomquist-Crawley teaches the system in claim 1, Bloomquist also teaches the system, wherein the one or more inputs include an electronic signature authorizing processing, by the backend system, the user data of the user to generate a summary report of the user's resource usage history (Figs. 1, 4, col. 10 lines [4-8]. Bloomquist describe the credit report on the borrower is generated and analyzed by the lender side (as backend system) shown in step 68).
Re-claim 9,
Bloomquist-Crawley teaches the system in claim 1, but Bloomquist fails to teach a system, wherein the executable code, when executed, further causes the at least one processor to: authenticate user authentication information provided by the user in order to access a digital platform, the digital platform being associated with the entity and used to service one or more existing entity objects attributed to the user; and based on the authenticating, provide access to the digital platform, wherein the input data is received via the graphical user interface that depicts entity information via the digital platform.
However, Crawley teaches:
wherein the executable code, when executed, further causes the at least one processor to: authenticate user authentication information provided by the user in order to access a digital platform, the digital platform being associated with the entity and used to service one or more existing entity objects attributed to the user; and based on the authenticating, provide access to the digital platform, wherein the input data is received via the graphical user interface that depicts entity information via the digital platforms (Fig. 1, [0044, 0048]. Crawley describes the process of authenticating the user information to access a digital platform 25 for a loan application process by requiring user login and password and two-factor authentication to prevent identity fraud).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the loan application process teachings of Bloomquist with the loan application access authentication teaching of Crawley to secure the user entry information and prevent identity fraud.
Re-claim 10,
Bloomquist-Crawley teaches the system in claim 1, but Bloomquist fails to teach a system, wherein the executable code, when executed, further causes the at least one processor to receive a digital signature indicating the user's acceptance of the desired entity object, wherein the digital signature comprises an encrypted digital authentication validating the user's identity.
However, Crawley teaches:
wherein the executable code, when executed, further causes the at least one processor to receive a digital signature indicating the user's acceptance of the desired entity object, wherein the digital signature comprises an encrypted digital authentication validating the user's identity (Fig. 19, [0041]. Crawley describes “…An application is moved to a status of Doc Signed when the customer indicates they accept the loan terms and has signed the loan agreement…” that the Doc Signed is conventionally encrypted to prevent identity fraud).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the loan application process teachings of Bloomquist with the loan application access authentication teaching of Crawley to secure the user entry information and prevent identity fraud.
Re-claim 15,
claim 15 is a method claim having similar limitations in scope of claim 1; therefore, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Re-claim 18,
in addition to what Bloomquist-Crawley teaches in claim 15, claim 18 is a method claim having similar limitations in scope of claim 4; therefore, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Re-claim 19,
in addition to what Bloomquist-Crawley teaches in claim 15, claim 19 is a method claim having similar limitations in scope of claim5; therefore, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 2-3 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bloomquist in view of Crawley, and further in view of Diana (US PG-Pub. 2021/0241371 A1).
Re-claim 2,
Bloomquist-Crawley teaches the system in claim 1, but Bloomquist fails to teach a system, wherein the at least two personalized entity object options are selected by the backend system as part of a pre-approval process that evaluates risks to the entity if the user is provided with any one of the at least two personalized entity object options.
However, Diana teaches:
wherein the at least two personalized entity object options are selected by the backend system as part of a pre-approval process that evaluates risks to the entity if the user is provided with any one of the at least two personalized entity object options (Fig. 4A, [0050]. Diana describes “…the pre-approval policy avoids the risk of lender 130 ultimately deciding that customer 120 does not qualify for a loan at the maximum loan amount indicated in the pre-approval”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the loan application process teachings of modified Bloomquist with applying the loan pre-approval policy in the loan application process teaching of Diana to minimize the risks to the lender.
Re-claim 3,
Bloomquist-Crawley-Diana teaches the system in claim 2, but Bloomquist fails to teach a system, wherein the pre-approval process is at least partially based on a risk grade assigned to the user, wherein the risk grade is based on a score attributed the user's resource borrowing history.
However, Diana teaches:
wherein the pre-approval process is at least partially based on a risk grade assigned to the user, wherein the risk grade is based on a score attributed the user's resource borrowing history ([0003, 0064]. Diana describes “… During the pre-approval stage, the lender may evaluate a potential borrower's creditworthiness based on factors such as the borrower's income and credit history…” ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the loan application process teachings of modified Bloomquist with applying the loan pre-approval policy in the loan application process teaching of Diana to minimize the risks to the lender.
Re-claim 16,
in addition to what Bloomquist-Crawley teaches in claim 15, claim 16 is a method claim having similar limitations in scope of claim 2; therefore, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Re-claim 17,
in addition to what Bloomquist-Crawley-Diana teaches in claim 16, claim 17 is a method claim having similar limitations in scope of claim 3; therefore, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 6 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bloomquist in view of Crawley, and further in view of Ichinose (US PG-Pub. 20070250543 A1).
Re-claim 6,
Bloomquist-Crawley teaches the system in claim 1, but Bloomquist fails to teach a system, wherein the at least one of the displayed two or more personalized entity objects that appears visually differentiated from any other displayed entity objects comprises a differentiated background color.
However, Ichinose teaches:
wherein the at least one of the displayed two or more personalized entity objects that appears visually differentiated from any other displayed entity objects comprises a differentiated background color (Fig. 5, [0038]. Ichinose describes the concept of displaying multiple different items differentiate by their background color).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the loan application process teachings of modified Bloomquist with displaying items in different background color teaching of Ichinose for user easily recognizing different items.
Re-claim 20,
in addition to what Bloomquist-Crawley teaches in claim 15, claim 20 is a method claim having similar limitations in scope of claim 6; therefore, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 7, 11, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bloomquist in view of Crawley, and further in view of Tengel et al. (“Tengel”, US Patent 5940812).
Re-claim 7,
Bloomquist-Crawley teaches the system in claim 1, but Bloomquist fails to teach a system, wherein the respective object attributes are selected from the group consisting of an entity object quantity, an entity object term, an entity object rate, an entity object fee, an increment remittance amount, and an estimated time period for obtaining the entity object.
However, Tengel teaches:
wherein the respective object attributes are selected from the group consisting of an entity object quantity, an entity object term, an entity object rate, an entity object fee, an increment remittance amount, and an estimated time period for obtaining the entity object (Figs. 2A, 6, col. 3 lines [1-9]. Tengel describes the loan product attribute includes interest rate, origination fee, maximum loan term, etc. that can be used to calculate the respective composite score to determine ranking of best available loans for user easily selection).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the loan application process teachings of modified Bloomquist with loan attributes selection teaching of Tengel to calculate the respective composite score to determine ranking of best available loans for user easily selection.
Re-claim 11,
claim 11 is a system claim having similar limitations in scope of claims 1 and 7 for lender server side; therefore, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Re-claim 12,
in addition to what Bloomquist-Crawley-Tengel teaches in claim 11, claim 12 is a system claim having similar limitations in scope of claim 7; therefore, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Re-claim 13,
Bloomquist-Crawley-Tengel teaches the system in claim 11, but Bloomquist fails to teach a system, wherein the higher score is assigned via the backend system.
However, Tengel teaches:
wherein the higher score is assigned via the backend system (Figs. 2A, 6, col. 3 lines [1-9], col. 9 lines [32-54]. Tengel describes the loan product attribute includes interest rate, origination fee, maximum loan term, etc. that can be used to calculate the respective composite score to determine ranking of best available loans provided to user that is determined by the backend system on the lender side).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the loan application process teachings of modified Bloomquist with loan attributes selection teaching of Tengel to calculate the respective composite score to determine ranking of best available loans for user easily selection.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bloomquist in view of Crawley, and further in view of Jazayeri (US PG-Pub. 2018/0006993 A1).
Re-claim 8,
Bloomquist-Crawley teaches the system in claim 1, but Bloomquist fails to teach a system, wherein displaying the two or more of the at least two personalized entity objects further includes displaying a selectable icon configured to facilitate accessing at least one additional personalized entity object of the at least two personalized entity objects.
However, Jazayeri teaches:
wherein displaying the two or more of the at least two personalized entity objects further includes displaying a selectable icon configured to facilitate accessing at least one additional personalized entity object of the at least two personalized entity objects ([0056-0058]. Jazayeri describes the concept of displaying the “see more” button to show or display additional items).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the loan application process teachings of modified Bloomquist with content collapsing or grouping into “see more” button teaching of Jazayeri to save displaying space and resource.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bloomquist in view of Crawley, Tengel, and further in view of Ichinose.
Re-claim 14,
Bloomquist-Crawley-Tengel teaches the system in claim 11, but Bloomquist fails to teach a system, wherein the one entity object is visually differentiated using a different background color than any other object of the two or more displayed entity objects.
However, Ichinose teaches:
wherein the one entity object is visually differentiated using a different background color than any other object of the two or more displayed entity objects (Fig. 5, [0038]. Ichinose describes the concept of displaying multiple different items differentiate by their background color).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the loan application process teachings of modified Bloomquist with displaying items in different background color teaching of Ichinose for user easily recognizing different items.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUAN S NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7612. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9-5).
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, Fred Ehichioya can be reached at 571-272-4034. 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.
/TUAN S NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2179