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 action is responsive to the amendment filed on 10/17/2025 to the Application filed on 11/29/2023.
Claims 1-14 and 17-22 are pending in the case. Claims 1, 17, and 21 are independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 17, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hussain, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20170004573 filed on 10/20/2015 (hereinafter Hussain) in view of Shiely et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20180268455 filed on 3/15/2017 (hereinafter Shiely).
As for independent claim 1, Hussain discloses method and a computing system for graphical user interface facilitating modification, comprising:
at least one processor; a communication interface communicatively coupled to the at least one processor; and a memory device storing executable code that, when executed, causes the at least one processor to:
(Hussain paragraph [0053], [0059], [0063] discloses processor, memory storing executable code)
access stored user data, wherein the stored user data is stored to one or more data storage locations and includes a history of user actions;
(Hussain paragraph [0013], [0028], [0029], [0174] discloses accessing stored user data, obtain set of internal data, that includes history of user actions, internal data includes specific details about one or more previous transactions)
score the stored user data in accordance with scoring criteria;
(Hussain [0013], [0016], [0056] disclose generating a fidelity score indicating risk assessment using internal data, verification data, and behavioral data where a fidelity score that reflect a projected likelihood of default on payment by the user)
identify, from the scored stored user data, a plurality of entity objects that are available for selection, the identifying including determining the scored user data surpasses a risk grade;
(Hussain paragraph [0051]-[0052] discloses displaying selectable entity objects, user payment options, based on fidelity score fallen within a range, where the fidelity score reflects risk assessment of a projected likelihood of default on payment by the user); and
display a graphical user interface depicting (i) the plurality of entity objects determined to be available to a user for selection
(Hussain paragraph [0052] discloses displaying plurality of selectable entity objects, third, fourth, and nth options, on a graphical user interface as shown in fig. 4).
Hussain does not appear to explicitly disclose method and system comprising displaying (ii) a plurality of control inputs facilitating modification of how the plurality of entity objects are displayed, wherein the plurality of control inputs include: an entity object filter; an entity object sorter; a display preferences option; and a rank input; receive, via the graphical user interface, an input to rearrange display of the plurality of entity objects; and modify, in accordance with the user input, display of the plurality of entity objects depicted by the graphical user interface. However, Shiely discloses method and a computing system for graphical user interface facilitating modification, comprising:
at least one processor; a communication interface communicatively coupled to the at least one processor; and a memory device storing executable code that, when executed, causes the at least one processor to:
(Shiely paragraph [0027, [0030] discloses processor connected to user interface executing software instructions stored in memory)
display a graphical user interface depicting (i) the plurality of entity objects determined to be available for selection and
(Shiely paragraph [0041] discloses displaying plurality ACME brand washer entity objects available to user as shown in fig. 3)
(ii) a plurality of control inputs facilitating modification of how the plurality of entity objects are displayed, wherein the plurality of control inputs include: an entity object filter; an entity object sorter; a display preferences option; and a rank input;
(Shiely paragraph [0041]-[0045] discloses plurality of control inputs 305A-305E and sort By button as shown in fig. 3 and plurality of control inputs 405A-505E and sort By button as shown in fig. 4 that includes object for filer by color, sort by delivery date, preference options such as price, and rank by delivery date)
receive, via the graphical user interface, an input to rearrange display of the plurality of entity objects; and modify, in accordance with the user input, display of the plurality of entity objects depicted by the graphical user interface
(Shiely paragraph [0024], [0038], [0041]-[0046] discloses the interface can receive user filter selection and sort selection, sort selection rearranges the display of list of objects according to the sort criteria).
As for claim 17, claim 17 reflects the method comprising computer executable instructions for implementing the article of manufacture as claimed in claim 1, and is rejected along the same rationale.
As for claim 21, claim 21 reflects the article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing the article of manufacture as claimed in claim 1, and is rejected along the same rationale (Hussain paragraph [0053], [0059], [0063] discloses processor, memory storing executable code).
Claims 2-5 and 18 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hussain in view of Shiely in view of Ghosh et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20250156297, filed on 11/13/2023 (hereinafter Ghosh).
As for claim 2, limitations of parent claim 1 have been discussed above. Hussain discloses method and system wherein
the plurality of entity objects are initially determined to likely be available for selection based on the user satisfying the scoring criteria to be eligible for the plurality of entity objects,
(Hussain paragraph [0051]-[0052] discloses displaying selectable entity objects, user payment options, are available for selection based on fidelity score being within the range for the user payment options).
Hussain does not appear to explicitly disclose method and system wherein one scoring criterion of the scoring criteria includes a user type. However,
Ghosh discloses method and system wherein
the plurality of entity objects are initially determined to likely be available for selection based on the user satisfying eligibility, wherein one eligibility criterion of the eligibility criteria includes a user type
(Ghosh paragraph [0094] discloses eligibility criteria, underwriting criteria, includes user type being person or business).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ghosh with Hussain and Shiely for the benefit of being able to provide a system “for determining criteria used by providers in evaluating customers for new accounts or products”, (Ghosh [0001]).
As for claim 3, limitations of parent claim 2 have been discussed above. Hussain discloses method and system wherein the scoring includes additional data
(Hussain paragraph [0017] discloses additional data including can be used to generate fidelity score).
Hussain does not appear to explicitly disclose additional data includes a total resource amount attributed to the user that is being retained by an entity that facilitates providing the plurality of entity objects.
However, Ghosh discloses method and system wherein
the additional data can be eligibility criteria that include a total resource amount attributed to the user that is being retained by an entity that facilitates providing the plurality of entity objects
(Ghosh paragraph [0094] discloses eligibility criteria, underwriting criteria, includes total resources amount, savings and assets).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ghosh with Hussain Shiely for the benefit of being able to provide a system “for determining criteria used by providers in evaluating customers for new accounts or products”, (Ghosh [0001]).
As for claim 4, limitations of parent claim 2 have been discussed above. Hussain discloses method and system wherein the scoring includes additional data
(Hussain paragraph [0017] discloses additional data including can be used to generate fidelity score).
Hussain does not appear to explicitly disclose additional data includes an annual resource accumulation by the user. However, Ghosh discloses method and system wherein
the additional data can be eligibility criteria that includes an annual resource accumulation by the user
(Ghosh paragraph [0094] discloses eligibility criteria, underwriting criteria, includes annual income).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ghosh with Hussain and Shiely for the benefit of being able to provide a system “for determining criteria used by providers in evaluating customers for new accounts or products”, (Ghosh [0001]).
As for claim 5, limitations of parent claim 2 have been discussed above. Ghosh discloses method and system wherein
the scoring include employment information of the user
(Hussain paragraph [0017], [0045] discloses additional data including known employers can be used to generate fidelity score).
As for claim 18, limitations of parent claim 17 have been discussed above. Claim 18 reflects the method comprising computer executable instructions for implementing the article of manufacture as claimed in claim 2, and is rejected along the same rationale.
Claims 6-9, 12, and 19-20 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hussain in view of Shiely in view of Hughes et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20120317016, filed on 6/8/2012 (hereinafter Hughes).
As for claim 6, limitations of parent claim 1 have been discussed above. Hughes discloses method and system wherein
the entity object filter enables the user to narrow a quantity of the plurality of entity objects being displayed in accordance with an applicable rate applied to each respective entity object of the plurality of entity objects
(Hughes paragraph [0121] discloses check box to filter loan products by low interest rate, only the items that meet filtering criteria are shown).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Hughes with Hussain and Shiely for the benefit of being able “to allow the user to customize the display of the submission and offers table”, (Hughes [0116]).
As for claim 7, limitations of parent claim 6 have been discussed above. Hughes discloses method and system wherein
the entity object filter further enables the user to narrow the quantity of the plurality of entity objects being displayed in accordance with a periodic remittance amount
(Hughes paragraph [0121] discloses check box to filter loan products by low monthly payment)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Hughes with Hussain and Shiely for the benefit of being able “to allow the user to customize the display of the submission and offers table”, (Hughes [0116]).
As for claim 8, limitations of parent claim 6 have been discussed above. Hughes discloses method and system wherein
the entity object filter further enables the user to narrow the quantity of the plurality of entity objects being displayed in accordance with a one- time initiation remittance amount
(Hughes paragraph [0121] discloses check box to filter loan products by low fees and/or closing costs).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Hughes with Hussain and Shiely for the benefit of being able “to allow the user to customize the display of the submission and offers table”, (Hughes [0116]).
As for claim 9, limitations of parent claim 6 have been discussed above. Hughes discloses method and system wherein
the entity object filter further enables the user to narrow the quantity of the plurality of entity objects being displayed in accordance with a filter value
(Hughes paragraph [0121] discloses various filter values user can use to filter the list of offers being presented).
Hughes further discloses method and system wherein
the entity object sort further enables the user to modify the plurality of entity objects being displayed in accordance with an acquiring duration to obtain each respective entity object of the plurality of entity objects
(Hughes paragraph [0117] discloses sort value can be acquiring duration, expiration of loan offer).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Hughes system and method wherein the entity object filter further enables the user to narrow the quantity of the plurality of entity objects being displayed in accordance with a filter value with Hughes system and method wherein the entity object sort further enables the user to modify the plurality of entity objects being displayed in accordance with an acquiring duration to obtain each respective entity object of the plurality of entity objects with Hussain and Shiely for a system and method wherein the entity object sort further enables the user to modify the plurality of entity objects being displayed in accordance with an acquiring duration to obtain each respective entity object of the plurality of entity objects. One would have been motivated to make such a combination for the benefit of being able “to allow the user to customize the display of the submission and offers table”, (Hughes [0116]).
As for claim 12, limitations of parent claim 1 have been discussed above. Hughes discloses method and system wherein
the entity object sorter enables the user to sort the plurality of entity objects in accordance with at least one criterion selected from the group consisting of an applicable rate applied to each respective entity object of the plurality of entity objects, a one-time initiation remittance amount, an acquiring duration to obtain each respective entity object of the plurality of entity objects, and a servicing amount
(Hughes paragraph [0117] discloses drop down menu to sort offers by interest rate, origination fees, and closing costs).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Hughes with Hussain and Shiely for the benefit of being able “to allow the user to customize the display of the submission and offers table”, (Hughes [0116]).
As for claim 19, limitations of parent claim 17 have been discussed above. Claim 19 reflects the method comprising computer executable instructions for implementing the article of manufacture as claimed in claim 6, and is rejected along the same rationale.
As for claim 20, limitations of parent claim 17 have been discussed above. Claim 20 reflects the method comprising computer executable instructions for implementing the article of manufacture as claimed in claim 12, and is rejected along the same rationale.
Claim 10 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hussain in view of Shiely in view of Hughes in view of Silva et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20210407012, filed on 6/26/2020 (hereinafter Silva).
As for claim 10, limitations of parent claim 6 have been discussed above. Silva discloses method and system wherein
the entity object filter further enables the user to narrow the quantity of the plurality of entity objects being displayed in accordance with a servicing amount
(Silva paragraph [0062]-[0063] discloses user can filter the offers by servicing amount, points and closing costs).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Silva with Hussain, Shiely and Hughes for the benefit of being able to allow users to customize the user interface to conveniently review products offered.
Claim 11 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hussain in view of Shiely in in view of Templain, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20190012318, filed on 8/19/2016 (hereinafter Templain).
As for claim 11, limitations of parent claim 1 have been discussed above. Templain discloses method and system wherein
each entity object includes a time period within which total resources obtained via each entity object in addition to a gain amount applied to each entity object are to be returned,
(Templain paragraph [0061] discloses time period total resources are to be return, total term of the loan in number of months)
wherein the entity object filter further enables the user to narrow the quantity of the plurality of entity objects being displayed in accordance with a total remittance amount of the total resources and the gain remunerated throughout the time period. (total loan payment)
(Templain paragraph [0061] discloses filtering value includes total remittance amount and gain, total amount of loan).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Templain with Hussain and Shiely for the benefit of being able to allow users to customize the user interface to conveniently review products offered.
Claims 13 and 22 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hussain in view of Shiely in view of Hoyer, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20140164238, filed on 12/12/2012 (hereinafter Hoyer).
As for claim 13, limitations of parent claim 1 have been discussed above. Hoyer discloses method and system wherein
the display preferences option enables the user to select a side-by-side comparison of details associated with at least two entity objects of the plurality of entity objects
(Hoyer paragraph [0053] discloses selecting options 506 displays two entity objects 516 in display areas 502 associated with the selecting options as shown in fig. 5B).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Hoyer with Hussain and Shiely for the benefit of being able to allow users to customize the user interface to conveniently review products offered.
As for claim 22, limitations of parent claim 21 have been discussed above. Claim 22 reflects the article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing the article of manufacture as claimed in claim 13, and is rejected along the same rationale.
Claim 14 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hussain in view of Shiely in view of Silva et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20210407012, filed on 6/26/2020 (hereinafter Silva).
As for claim 14, limitations of parent claim 1 have been discussed above. Silva discloses method and system wherein
the rank input enables the user to rank each respective entity object of the plurality of entity objects
(Silva paragraph [0112] discloses ranking objects, offers, according to sorting criteria).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Silva with Hussain and Shiely for the benefit of being able to allow users to customize the user interface to conveniently review products offered.
Response to Arguments
Claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. As such, rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in the previous office action have been withdrawn.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. §102
Applicant has amended claims 1 and 17. As such, rejection of claims 1 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 in the previous office action have been respectfully withdrawn based on the amendment.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. §103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-14 and 17-22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
The reference Eze, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20070244808 discloses displaying different types of loan product based on user’s credit score. (See paragraph [0032]).
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 JEANETTE J PARKER whose telephone number is (571)270-3647. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 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, Jeanette Parker can be reached at 571-270-3647. 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.
/JEANETTE J PARKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2646
Prosecution Insights