DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication(s) filed on 05 August 2026.
Claim(s) 1, 9 and 17 is/are amended.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05 August 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101
Step 2A Prong 1
Applicant argues that the claims do not recite a method of organizing human activity. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Step 2A Prong 1 requires examiners to evaluate whether a claim recites a judicial exception as the applicant cited. The elements which examiner identified in Step 2A Prong 1 are those which describe the noted abstract idea which means that the claim recites an abstract idea. “The mere inclusion of a judicial exception such as a mathematical formula (which is one of the mathematical concepts identified as an abstract idea in MPEP § 2106.04(a)) in a claim means that the claim "recites" a judicial exception under Step 2A Prong One.” See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2). “When performing the analysis at Step 2A Prong One, it is sufficient for the examiner to provide a reasoned rationale that identifies the judicial exception recited in the claim and explains why it is considered a judicial exception (e.g., that the claim limitation(s) falls within one of the abstract idea groupings). Therefore, there is no requirement for the examiner to rely on evidence, such as publications or an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.104(d)(2), to find that a claim recites a judicial exception. Cf. Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. Amazon.com Inc., 838 F.3d 1266, 1271-72, 120 USPQ2d 1210, 1214-15 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (affirming district court decision that identified an abstract idea in the claims without relying on evidence); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1362-64, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-94 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (same); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 776 F.3d 1343, 1347, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1357-58 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (same).” See MPEP 2106.07(a)(III). The omitted element(s) (if any) are elements in addition to the abstract idea (i.e. they are not abstract) which require further analysis under Step 2A Prong 2 in order to determine if they cause the recited abstract idea to be integrated into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.07(a)(II). The omitted element(s) (if any) are later enumerated under Step 2A Prong 2 as additional elements. The claims recite and/or describe a judicial exception.
Applicant argues that the automatically triggering involves the organization of computer-based activity through computer hardware and software components. Examiner agrees. However, as stated above, which Examiner incorporates herein, Step 2A Prong 1 only cares if the claim recites an abstract idea at all. The recitation of elements in addition to the abstract idea require further analysis under Step 2A Prong 2 in order to determine if they cause the recited abstract idea to be integrated into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.07(a)(II).
Step 2A Prong 2
Applicant argues that conventional systems cannot create and initialize loan data structure without delaying point-of-sale transactional operations thus enabling asynchronous interactions among computing systems and thereby reflecting a technical solution. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that applicant’s purported improvement comes from potential improvements in the judicial exception, and not from improvements to computers or technology as the recitation of computing components in the claimed invention amounts to no more than invoking computers merely as a tool. See at least MPEP 2106.05(a)(I). The recitation of generic computing components to perform an otherwise ineligible judicial exception does not confer patent eligibility.
Applicant argues that their claims are eligible for reasons similar to those in McRO. Examiner respectfully disagrees. This court case is directed to improvements to the functioning of a computer or to a technology or technical field. In McRO, improvements to the then done by hand animation technology whereby each person performed hand drawn animation differently into a consistent implementation by rules on a computer. Applicant’s invention would be performed the same in person as on a computer and thus is mere instructions to perform the abstract idea on a computer. The case of McRO does not apply to the applicant’s claims.
Step 2B
Applicant argues their claims are eligible under Step 2B because they are not “well-understood, routine, or conventional” in the field. Examiner respectfully disagrees. “Although the conclusion of whether a claim is eligible at Step 2B requires that all relevant considerations be evaluated, most of these considerations were already evaluated in Step 2A Prong Two. Thus, in Step 2B, examiners should:
• Carry over their identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two;
• Carry over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) - (c), (e) (f) and (h):
• Re-evaluate any additional element or combination of elements that was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP § 2106.05(g), because if such re-evaluation finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that the additional element is no longer considered to be insignificant; and
• Evaluate whether any additional element or combination of elements are other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, per MPEP § 2106.05(d)” (See MPEP 2106.05(II)).
In both the prior and instant Office Action, the conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two are equally applied in Step 2B which further re-evaluates additional elements which are considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity and evaluates these elements as per MPEP §2106.05(d) to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. Said elements which are considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity are evaluated as well-understood, routine, and conventional as per the evidentiary requirements detailed in MPEP §2106.07(a)(III) utilizing option (B) via citation to one or more of the court decisions discussed in MPEP §2106.05(d)(II). Thus, there are no further elements to evaluate under Step 2B. Most considerations relating to any additional elements were already evaluated in Step 2A Prong Two and thus do not require further re-evaluation in Step 2B.
Applicant argues that their claims are eligible for reasons similar to those in Example 35. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In example 35, random code data was transmitted, encrypted, and displayed on the customer’s mobile device such that the ATM read the corresponding image, decrypted the image, and analyzed the decrypted data to verify the customer identity. In this case, the combination of steps set up a sequence of events that address unique problems associated with bank cards and ATMs (e.g., the use of stolen or “skimmed” bank cards and/or customer information to perform unauthorized transactions). Thus, like in BASCOM, the claimed combination of additional elements presents a specific, discrete implementation of the abstract idea. Further, the combination of obtaining information from the mobile communication device (instead of the ATM keypad) and using the image (instead of a PIN) to verify the customer’s identity by matching identification information does not merely select information by content or source, in contrast to Electric Power, but instead describes a process that differs from the routine and conventional sequence of events normally conducted by ATM verification, such as entering a PIN, similar to the unconventional sequence of events in DDR. The additional elements in claim 2 thus represent significantly more (i.e., provide an inventive concept) because they are a practical implementation of the abstract idea of fraud prevention that performs identity verification in a non‐conventional and non‐generic way, even though the steps use well‐known components (a processor and mobile communication device). Claim 2 is eligible (Step 2B: Yes). In the instant case, the claims are attempting to solve a business problem (i.e. transaction authorization and consolidation of transaction/loan data) using conventional computer functions. There is no unique problem associated with any technological environment or field of use that is being solved as was the case for Example 35. The instant claims are not analogous to Example 35.
Applicant argues that the claims are not generally known in the art thereby improving the operation of computing systems used to execute transactional requests. Examiner respectfully disagrees. “Although the courts often evaluate considerations such as the conventionality of an additional element in the eligibility analysis, the search for an inventive concept should not be confused with a novelty or non-obviousness determination.” See MPEP § 2106.05(I). Although the second step in the Alice/Mayo framework is termed a search for an “inventive concept,” the analysis is not an evaluation of novelty or non-obviousness, but rather, a search for an element or combination of elements that is sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the ineligible concept itself. Furthermore, tests for whether an element is conventional under Step 2B only applies to the additional elements recited and not to the abstract idea present within the claims. Improvement of technology by virtue of novelty or non-obviousness is not a test of eligibility.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. §103
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks at pages 14-15, filed 05 August 2026, with respect to the independent claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of 06 April 2026 has been withdrawn.
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.
Step 1 of the 101 Analysis:
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recites a method, system, and non-transitory computer-readable device for asynchronous loan data structure origination. These are a process, machine and article of manufacture which are within the four categories of statutory subject matter.
Step 2A Prong 1 of the 101 Analysis:
The following limitations and/or similar versions are recited in claim(s) 1, 9 and 17:
Claim 1, 9 and 17:
“creating,…and prior to transacting with a checking account, an account data structure based on a request from a user, wherein the account data structure comprises a line of credit parameter;”
“receiving, from a point of sale system, transaction data and a request for authorizing a transaction, wherein the transaction data comprises information identifying an account and a transaction value, and wherein the account is associated with a user;”
“determining that a difference between the transaction value and an account balance associated with the checking account is less than a value of the line of credit parameter associated with the account data structure;”
“in response to the determining: transmitting, to the point of sale system, an authorization message, wherein the authorization message comprises an authorization code enabling the point of sale system to authorize the transaction”
“triggering an asynchronous loan origination process to create a loan data structure for a loan balance corresponding to the difference by transmitting an instruction to a loan source system to generate a loan data structure, the loan data structure comprising a first loan data structure parameter based on one or more parameters of the account data structure and the a second loan data structure parameter corresponding to a loan term,”
“wherein the transmitting the instruction to the loan source system occurs independently form the transmitting the authorization message to the point of sale system such that the authorization message is transmitted without any delay caused by the transmission of the instruction,”
“wherein funds associated with the loan balance corresponding to the first loan data structure parameter are independent of accounts associated with the user.”
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, describes Commercial or Legal Interactions but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “…by a processor…”, “a memory”, “automatically…”, or “A non-transitory computer-readable device having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by at least one computing device, cause the at least one computing device to perform operations comprising:” nothing in the claims’ elements precludes the steps from practically describing Commercial or Legal Interactions. For example, but for the recited computer language, the limitations in the context of this claim describes Marketing or Sales Activities or Behaviors. A Marketing or Sales Activity or Behavior is described when underwriting a loan. If a claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, describes Commercial or Legal Interactions but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the independent claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 of the 101 Analysis:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the independent claim(s) recite the following (or similar) additional elements:
Claim 1, 9 and 17:
“…using a processor…”
“automatically…”
Claim 9:
“a memory;”
“at least one processor coupled to the memory and configured to:”
Claim 17:
“A non-transitory computer-readable device having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by at least one computing device, cause the at least one computing device to perform operations comprising:”
The computer components (processor, automation, memory, and non-transitory computer-readable device) are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor, generic computer automation, and generic storage) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement the judicial exception on a computer or by using a computer merely as a tool to perform an existing process. These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. Simply implementing an abstract idea on a computer as a tool to perform an existing process is not indicative of integration into a practical application (See MPEP § 2106.05(f).)
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 independent claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B of the 101 Analysis:
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 identified in Step 2A Prong 2 (if any) amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the judicial exception on a computer or no more than mere data gathering or data outputting which only adds insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception. Accordingly, the Examiner in accordance with MPEP §2106.05(II):
• Carries over their identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two;
• Carries over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) - (c), (e) (f) and (h):
• Re-evaluates any additional element or combination of elements that was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP § 2106.05(g), because if such re-evaluation finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that the additional element is no longer considered to be insignificant.
The claim elements which recite additional elements are:
Claim 1, 9 and 17:
“…using a processor…”
“automatically…”
Claim 9:
“a memory;”
“at least one processor coupled to the memory and configured to:”
Claim 17:
“A non-transitory computer-readable device having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by at least one computing device, cause the at least one computing device to perform operations comprising:”
Examiner incorporates the corresponding rationale provided in Step 2A Prong Two herein by carrying over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) – (c), (e), (f) and (h).
These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity cannot provide an inventive concept when the activities are well-understood routine and conventional. The independent claims contain no elements which are considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity.
The independent claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent Claim(s) 2-8, 10-16 and 18-20 recite limitations that are similar to the abstract idea noted in the independent claims because they further narrow the independent claim(s) which recite one or more judicial exceptions. Accordingly, these claim elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the claims since they recite abstract ideas.
Dependent Claims 4, 12 and 20 further recites a user device. The computer components (user device) are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic device) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement the judicial exception on a computer or by using a computer merely as a tool to perform an existing process. These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. Simply implementing an abstract idea on a computer as a tool to perform an existing process is not indicative of integration into a practical application (See MPEP § 2106.05(f).)
Dependent Claims 5 and 13 further recite an ACH network. The use of an ACH network is implemented at a high level of generality (i.e. as simply using the technology) such that it amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use is not indicative of integration into a practical application (See MPEP § 2106.05(h).)
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 identified in Step 2A Prong 2 (if any) amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the judicial exception on a computer or no more than mere data gathering or data outputting which only adds insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception. Accordingly, the Examiner in accordance with MPEP §2106.05(II):
• Carries over their identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two;
• Carries over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) - (c), (e) (f) and (h):
• Re-evaluates any additional element or combination of elements that was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP § 2106.05(g), because if such re-evaluation finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that the additional element is no longer considered to be insignificant.
The claim elements which recite additional elements are:
Claims 4, 12 and 20:
“…to a user device associated with the user…”
Claims 5 and 13:
“…via an ACH network”
Examiner incorporates the corresponding rationale provided in Step 2A Prong Two herein by carrying over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) – (c), (e), (f) and (h).
These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity cannot provide an inventive concept when the activities are well-understood routine and conventional. The dependent claims contain no elements which are considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity.
The claims are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ross et al. (US 2012/0197800 A1) discloses creating a security interest in assets when the user exceeds a predetermined total credit limit.
Shapiro et al. (US 2004/0177031 A1) discloses initiating a loan data structure including loan states.
Kollur et al. (US 2015/0019401 A1) discloses an integrated credit decision platform.
Stone (US 2006/0282375 A1) discloses loan or credit underwriting provided as an overdraft credit plan or extended to maintain a specified minimum balance.
Kerof et al. (US 11,107,157 B1) discloses sending a request for a loan if a payment processing server determines that a payment instrument is exceeded.
Zeng et al. (CN 112581251 A) discloses a system with credit overdraft and consumption loan function.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ADAM J HILMANTEL whose telephone number is (571)272-8984. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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, Abhishek Vyas can be reached at (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 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.
/ADAM HILMANTEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3691
Prosecution Insights