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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/18/2026 has been entered.
DETAILED ACTION
The following Non-Final office action is in response to applicant’s Claims Amendments/REMARKs filed on 02/18/2026.
Priority Date: Prov.(03/11/2024)
Claim Status:
Amended claims: 1, 7-9, 15, and 17
Pending claims : 1-20.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
In particular, claims are directed to a judicial exception (Abstract idea) without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, (Step-1) it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. (Step-2A) If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, (Step-2B) it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Examples of abstract ideas grouping include: (a) Mental processes; (b) Certain methods of organizing human activities [ i. Fundamental Economic Practice; ii. Commercial or Legal Interaction; iii. Managing Personal behavior or Relations between People]; and (c) Mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. (2014).
Analysis is based on the 2019 Revised Patent Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG)-(see MPEP § 2106.04(II) and 2106.04(d).
[Step-1] The claims are directed to a method/system/machine, which are a statutory category of invention.
Claim 1 (exemplary) recites a series of steps for Originating Asynchronous Loan Data Structure.
[Step-2A]-Prong 1:The method claim 1 is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception:
The claim 1 recites the limitations of:
creating, using a processor 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 indicating that the transaction is authorized; and
automatically triggering an asynchronous loan origination process to create a loan data structure for a loan balance corresponding to the difference,
wherein automatically triggering the asynchronous loan origination process is performed independently from transmitting the authorization message to the point of sale system, such that the authorization message is transmitted without any delay caused by the asynchronous loan origination process,
wherein, independent of transmitting the authorization message, the asynchronous loan origination process initializes a first loan data structure parameter based on one or more parameters of the account data structure and initializes a second loan data structure parameter based on a user input received after completing the transaction,
wherein the one or more parameters of the account data structure comprises at least a loan rate, and wherein the second loan data structure is indicative of a loan term, and wherein funds associated with the loan balance corresponding to the first loan data structure parameter are independent of accounts associated with the user.
The claimed method/system/machine simply describes series of steps for Originating Asynchronous Loan Data Structure. These limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations via commercial or business activities and/or interactions of underwriting a loan [“automatically triggering an asynchronous loan origination process to create a loan data structure for a loan balance corresponding to the difference”], but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting one or more servers/processors, devices and computer network nothing in the claim precludes the limitations from practically being performed by organizing human business activity. For example, without the structure elements language, the claim encompasses the activities that can be performed manually between the users and a third party. These limitations are directed to an abstract idea because they are business interaction/sale activity that falls within the enumerated group of “certain methods of organizing human activity” in the 2019 PEG.
[Step-2A]-Prong 2:
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if it is integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional limitation of using one or more servers/processors, devices and computer network to perform the steps. The processor in the steps is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing data. This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. 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 claim is directed to the abstract idea.
[Step-2B]
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas (whether claim provides inventive concept).
As discussed above, the recitation of the claimed limitations amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a processor (using the processor as a tool to implement the abstract idea). Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the processor at each step of the process performs purely generic computer functions. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. The same analysis applies here, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at or provide an inventive concept.
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea, and the claim is not patent eligible.
The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention including independent claims 9, and 17.
Furthermore, the dependent claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20 do not resolve the issues raised in the independent claims.
The dependent claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20 are directed towards:
Using in claims (2-4, 10-12, 18-20), further comprising: acquiring credit data; and defining the line of credit parameter; wherein the asynchronous loan origination process comprises: updating the value of the line of credit parameter to reflect the loan balance; transmitting, to a user device associated with the user, a notification indicating creation of the loan data structure, wherein the notification includes at least the first loan data structure parameter and the loan balance; And
In Claims (5-8, 13-16), further comprising: receiving, from the point of sale system via a card authorization system, the transaction data and the request for authorizing the transaction; and processing a transfer of funds via an ACH network; initiating a transfer of the at least a portion of the transaction value from the account to a merchant account associated with the transaction; and initiating a transfer of the loan balance from a loan funding source to the merchant account; wherein the information identifying the account comprises a routing number and an checking account number, and transmitting an instruction to a loan funding source system to transfer funds for the loan balance to a merchant account associated with the transaction without depositing the funds in the checking account associated with the user.
These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and are similarly rejected under same rationale.
Accordingly, the dependent claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20 are rejected as ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. 101 based upon the same analysis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of AIA 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ross et al (US 2012/0197800-A1) in view of Shapiro et al (US 2004/0177031-A1).
Ref claim 1, Ross discloses a method comprising:
creating, using a processor 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 (para [0018], Fig.2, via a payment processing environment…the user may choose to use a hybrid secured credit card 203b or another payment device 203a…to process the payment. The account system 205a may verify (see Fig.5, step 504) the available credit limit… The account system 205a may verify (see Fig. 5, step 504) the available credit limit on the hybrid secured credit card 203b to determine if the amount of the transaction would cause the available (unsecured) credit limit on the hybrid secured credit card 203b to be exceeded. Assuming the transaction would put the card 203b overlimit, instead of declining the card, the system may (optionally) determine if the user's settings indicate (see Fig. 5, step 508) that when the user exceeds the predetermined total credit limit (e.g., $1,000), then the user wishes to create a security interest in assets (e.g., account 205b associated with the hybrid secured credit card) in order to obtain approval of the transaction. In an alternate embodiment, the system may inquire as to available funds (see Fig. 5, step 512) in the associated with account 205b without preforming optional step 508 …);
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 (para [0018], Fig.2; via a customer use a hybrid secured credit card (e.g., mobile phone 203a, card 203b, etc.) at a point-of-sale [POS] system 201…purchase products…the POS system 201 may contact an account system 205a to process the payment…);
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 (para [0019]; via the account system 205a may belong to a financial institution (e.g. bank [implied with checking account] or credit union etc.) …for an account 205b/with hybrid secured credit card 203a,203b.…The account system 205 may compare (see Fig.5, step 512) the amount of the payment requested over…total credit limit with the available balance on the account 205b [implied determining difference]...);
in response to the determining:
transmitting, to the point of sale system, an authorization message indicating that the transaction is authorized (para [0018], Fig.2; via a customer use a hybrid secured credit card (e.g., mobile phone 203a, card 203b,etc.) at POS system 201…purchase products…the POS system 201 may contact an account system 205a to process the payment…[0019]; via The account system 205a……ex. the available balance may be maintained I real-time; With the authorization/approval of the requested payment, the recipient of the payment [e.g., payee 207] provided with the payment of funds [see Fig. 5, step 522]…); and
automatically triggering an asynchronous loan origination process to create a loan data structure for a loan balance corresponding to the difference, wherein automatically triggering the asynchronous loan origination process is performed independently from transmitting the authorization message to the point of sale system, such that the authorization message is transmitted without any delay caused by the asynchronous loan origination process, [[wherein, independent of transmitting the authorization message, the asynchronous loan origination process initializes a first loan data structure parameter based on one or more parameters of the account data structure and initializes a second loan data structure parameter based on a user input received after completing the transaction ]], wherein the one or more parameters of the account data structure comprises at least a loan rate, and wherein the second loan data structure is indicative of a loan term, and wherein funds associated with the loan balance corresponding to the first loan data structure parameter are independent of accounts associated with the user (para [0019, 23-24]; via the account system 205a…a financial institution [e.g., a bank, credit union, etc.]…credit limit… the remaining credit line (interpreted as asynchronous) available …to a user may be reduced in real time by the customer spending on the hybrid secured credit card;…in access of the total credit limit. With the authorization/approval of the requested payment, the recipient of the payment [e.g., payee 207] [implied POS system] provided with the payment of funds [see Fig. 5, step 522]…).
Ross does not explicitly disclose the step of: wherein, independent of transmitting the authorization message, the asynchronous loan origination process initializes a first loan data structure parameter based on one or more parameters of the account data structure and initializes a second loan data structure parameter based on a user input received after completing the transaction.
However, Shapiro being in the same field of invention discloses the step of: wherein, independent of transmitting the authorization message, the asynchronous loan origination process initializes a first loan data structure parameter based on one or more parameters of the account data structure and initializes a second loan data structure parameter based on a user input received after completing the transaction (para [0036], Fig. 1, shows processes 128, 130, 132, and 150. A process refers …software application program usage/availability, message data/parameters…for Ex. user account data 136, defaulted loan data 140…( … groups of users authorized to access software application programs 104, 108,…)…message length and/or message volume. [0049], Fig. 2A, a generic group of loan states…includes loan states 210, 220, 230, and 240 [implied first or second loan data structures]…[0076], Fig.5C, the server 110 identifies an asynchronous loan event that relates the present loan state to an occurrence-wise next loan state [568 in Fig. 5C] …the defaulted loan based on the updatd loan state [516 in Fig. 5A…).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the features mentioned by Ross to include the disclosures as taught by Shapiro to facilitate Originating Asynchronous loans.
Ref claim 2, Ross discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: acquiring credit data associated with the user; and defining the line of credit parameter based on the credit data (para [0018], Fig.2; via a customer use a hybrid secured credit card (e.g., mobile phone 203a, card 203b,etc.) at POS system 201…purchase products…the POS system 201 may contact an account system 205a to process the payment…).
Ref claim 3, Ross discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the asynchronous loan origination process comprises: updating the value of the line of credit parameter to reflect the loan balance (para [0026]; Fig.4; via …in one example, an evaluation of additional lines of collateral [e.g., guarantor’s account] may occur in step 406A, and user may enter into general recourse loan contracts/agreements [in step 406B]…for secured line of credit for the hybrid secured credit card …);
Ref claim 4, Ross discloses the method of claim 3, further comprising: transmitting to a user device associated with the user, a notification indicating creation of the loan data structure, wherein the notification includes at least the first loan data structure parameter and the loan balance (para [0026]; Fig.4; via …in one example, an evaluation of additional lines of collateral [e.g., guarantor’s account] may occur in step 406A, and user may enter into general recourse loan contracts/agreements] in step 406B]…for secured line of credit for the hybrid secured credit card …);
Ref claim 5, Ross discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving, from the point of sale system via a card authorization system, the transaction data and the request for authorizing the transaction; and processing a transfer of funds via an ACH network (para [0019]; via … ; With the authorization/approval of the requested payment, the recipient of the payment [e.g., payee 207][implied POS system ] provided with the payment of funds [see Fig. 5, step 522]…).
Ref claim 6, Ross discloses the method of claim 5, further comprising: updating a value of the account balance to reflect at least a portion of the transaction value; initiating a transfer of the at least a portion of the transaction value from the account to a merchant account associated with the transaction; and initiating a transfer of the loan balance from a loan funding source to the merchant account associated with the transaction (para [0019]; via … ; With the authorization/approval of the requested payment, the recipient of the payment [e.g., payee 207][implied POS system ] provided with the payment of funds [see Fig. 5, step 522]… [0026]; FIG.4; via …in one example, an evaluation of additional lines of collateral [e.g., guarantor’s account] may occur in step 406A, and user may enter into general recourse loan contracts/agreements [in step 406B]…for secured line of credit for the hybrid secured credit card …).
Ref claim 7, Ross discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the information identifying the checking account comprises a routing number and an account number (para [0019]; via the account system 205a may belong to a financial institution (e.g. bank or credit union etc.) …for an account 205b/with hybrid secured credit card 203a, 203b.…)
Ref claim 8, Ross discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: transmitting an instruction, to a loan funding source system to transfer funds for the loan balance to a merchant account associated with the transaction without depositing the funds in the checking account associated with the user (para [0019]; via … ; With the authorization/approval of the requested payment, the recipient of the payment [e.g., payee 207][implied POS system] provided with the payment of funds [see Fig. 5, step 522]…[0026]; Fig.4; via …in one example, an evaluation of additional lines of collateral [e.g., guarantor’s account] may occur in step 406A, and user may enter into general recourse loan contracts/agreements [in step 406 B]…for secured line of credit for the hybrid secured credit card …).
Claim 9 recites similar limitations to claim 1 and thus rejected using the same art and rationale in the rejection of claim 1 as set forth above.
Claims 10-16 are rejected as per the reasons set forth in claims 2-8 respectively.
Claim 17 recites similar limitations to claim 1 and thus rejected using the same art and rationale in the rejection of claim 1 as set forth above.
Claims 18-20 are rejected as per the reasons set forth in claims 2-4 respectively.
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS:
Applicant's arguments filed on 02/18/26 have been fully considered and they are deemed to be non-persuasive:
Response to Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejection is addressed in the above rejection.
Applicant argues further with 101 rejection in substance that "The claims are Not Directed to an Abstract Idea and the claims Recite” Significantly More" than abstract idea, and noted PEG-2019 [Step-2A-Prong One-Prong two & Step-2B].
Applicant also cited analogy with the court cases, such as BASCOM etc.
In addition to 101 rejections Applicant noted about 103 rejections with applied prior arts.
In response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Updated claim analysis as a whole including amended features are provided above again based on the latest Patent Eligibility Guidance [2019-PEG].
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more. The rejection of the previous action was a direct result of the Supreme Court's decision in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd v. CLS Bank I'ntl. 573 U.S. (2014). Under Alice.
Applicant’s REMARKS:
“Reconsideration of this Application is respectfully requested.
Upon entry of the foregoing amendment, claims 1-20 are pending in the application, with claims 1, 9, and 17 being the independent claims. Claims 1-4, 9-12, and 17-20 are sought to be amended.
Based on the above amendment and the following remarks, Applicant respectfully requests that the Examiner reconsider all outstanding rejections and that they be withdrawn.” [Noted].
A. Rejection under 35 U.S.C.§101:
Applicant argued that, “Claims 1-20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as allegedly directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Applicant respectfully traverses this rejection.
The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure ("MPEP") instructs examiners to apply a three- part test to determine whether a claim is statutory under Section 101….;…;…;
Even if claims 1, 9, and 17 do fall within one of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas under prong one of Step 2A of the USPTO guidance (which Applicant does not concede), claims 1, 9, and 17 as amended integrate the alleged abstract idea under prong two of Step 2A of the USPTO guidance into a practical application. …;…;
Finally, even if claims 1, 9, and 17 are directed to a judicial exception under prongs one and two of Step 2A of the USPTO guidance (which Applicant does not concede), they are nonetheless patent-eligible because they recite additional elements that provide "significantly more" than the alleged abstract idea. As explained in the USPTO guidance, "significantly more" can be shown if the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the exception itself. That is, there is an inventive concept in the claim. …;…;…;
Thus, for at least the foregoing reasons, the instant claims are patent-eligible, and the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 should be reconsidered and withdrawn.”
IN RESPONSE-to A: EXAMINER DISAGREES:
Under Alice-Step (2A)-Prong 1: A method for deriving financial information from payment accounts is akin to the abstract idea subject matter grouping of: (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity as ‘Fundamental economic practice to Managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including, teaching, and following rules or instructions). As such, the claims include an abstract idea. The specific limitations of the invention are identified to encompass the abstract idea include:
(creating,…, a checking account data structure …a line of credit parameter; receiving, from a point of sale system, transaction data … information identifying an account and …the account is associated with a user; determining that a difference…account data structure is authorized; and automatically triggering …, wherein automatically triggering the asynchronous loan …the point of sale system such that…process, wherein, independent of transmitting the authorization message, the asynchronous loan origination process …the account data structure…,wherein the one or more parameters of the account data structure comprises at least a loan rate, and wherein the second loan data structure is indicative of a loan term, and wherein funds associated with the loan balance corresponding to the first loan data structure parameter are independent of accounts associated with the user. )
As stated above, this abstract idea falls into the subject matter grouping (b) of: (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity as ‘Fundamental economic practice to Managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions.).
Under Alice-Step (2A)-Prong 2: When considered individually and in combination, the instant claims do not integrate the exception into a practical application because the steps of:
(creating,…, a checking account data structure …a line of credit parameter; receiving, from a point of sale system, transaction data … information identifying an account and …the account is associated with a user; determining that a difference…account data structure is authorized; and automatically triggering …, wherein automatically triggering the asynchronous loan …the point of sale system such that …process, wherein, independent of transmitting the authorization message, the asynchronous loan origination process …the account data structure…,wherein the one or more parameters of the account data structure comprises at least a loan rate, and wherein the second loan data structure is indicative of a loan term, and wherein funds associated with the loan balance corresponding to the first loan data structure parameter are independent of accounts associated with the user. )
do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception (i.e. the abstract idea).
The instant recited claims including additional elements (i.e. “creating…;receiving….;determining…the checking account...;transmitting…indicative that the transaction is authorized, and…,wherein automatically triggering…,wherein…a loan term, and wherein funds associated with the loan balance corresponding to the first loan data structure parameter are independent of accounts associated with the user.”)
do not improve the functioning of the computer or improve another technology or technical field nor do they recite meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The limitations merely use a generic computing technology (Specification [0025-27]: processor, memory, instructions, storage medium, and electrical communication) as tools to perform an abstract idea or merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. (MPEP § 2106.05 (f) (g)). Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Under Alice-Step (2B): Additionally, 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 (Claims: e.g., processor, machine learning, equations, instructions, memory, electrical communication, and storage medium) amount to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or merely using generic components as tool to perform an abstract idea. In conclusion, merely “linking/applying” the exception using generic computer components does not constitute ‘significantly more’ than the abstract idea. (MPEP § 2106.05 (f) (h)). Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Moreover, in support of “Mental Process ”or “Method of organizing Human activity”: It is to be noted that “the claimed invention is similar to Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mental processes: “a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind ). MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), 2106.05(a)(g)(h).”
Moreover, Applicant’s citation of: BASCOM is non-persuasive because the claims at issue in BASCOM are readily distinguishable over the instant claims. In BASCOM v. AT&T: The claimed invention is able to provide individually customizable filtering at the remote ISP server by taking advantage of the technical capability of certain communication networks. …recite a system for filtering Internet content. The claimed filtering system is located on a remote ISP server that associates each network account with (1) one or more filtering schemes and (2) at least one set of filtering elements from a plurality of sets of filtering elements, thereby allowing individual network accounts to customize the filtering of Internet traffic associated with the account. For example, one filtering scheme could be “a word-screening type filtering scheme” and one set of filtering elements (from a plurality of sets) could be a “master list [] of disallowed words or phrases together with [an] individual [list of] words, phrases or rules.” Id. at 4:30-35.
In contrast, the instant claims provide a generically computer-implemented solution to a business-related or economic problem and are thus incomparable to the claims at issue in BASCOM.
B. Rejection under 35 U.S.C.§103:
Applicant argued that, “Claims 1-20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0197800 to Ross et al. ("Ross"), in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0177031 to Shapiro et al. ("Shapiro"). Applicant respectfully traverses this rejection.
To expedite prosecution and not in acquiescence to the propriety of the rejection,
independent claims 1, 9, and 17 are sought to be amended. Independent claims 1, 9, and 17 recite features that distinguish over the applied reference. Independent claim 1 recites, among other features: …;….;…;…;
Accordingly, as Ross fails to disclose, teach, or suggest at least the above-recited distinguishing features of independent claims 1, 9, and 17, independent claims 1, 9, and 17 are patentable. Claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20 depend from and add features to claims 1, 9, and 17, and thus are patentable for at least the same reasons as claims 1, 9, and 17 in addition to their own distinguishing features. Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 1-20 should also be reconsidered and withdrawn.”
IN RESPONSE-to B: Examiner disagrees with applicant’s assertions:
However, 35 USC § 103 rejection with art-:”Ross” et al, in view of art “Shapiro” et al disclosing [obviously] all limitations including amended elements as stated above under 35 USC § 103 Rejections. Such as,
Ross does not explicitly disclose the step of: wherein, independent of transmitting the authorization message, the asynchronous loan origination process initializes a first loan data structure parameter based on one or more parameters of the account data structure and initializes a second loan data structure parameter based on a user input received after completing the transaction.
However, Shapiro being in the same field of invention discloses the step of: wherein, independent of transmitting the authorization message, the asynchronous loan origination process initializes a first loan data structure parameter based on one or more parameters of the account data structure and initializes a second loan data structure parameter based on a user input received after completing the transaction (para [0036], Fig. 1, shows processes 128, 130, 132, and 150…message data/parameters…for Ex. user account data 136, defaulted loan data 140…[0049], Fig. 2A, a generic group of loan states…includes loan states 210, 220, 230, and 240 [implied first or second loan data structures]…[0076], Fig.5C, the server 110 identifies an asynchronous loan event that relates the present loan state to an occurrence-wise next loan state [568 in Fig. 5C] …the defaulted loan based on the updatd loan state [516 in Fig. 5A…).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the features mentioned by Ross to include the disclosures as taught by Shapiro to facilitate Originating Asynchronous loans.
CONCLUSION
The prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kollur et al (US 20150019401 A1) discloses Integrated Credit Decision Platform.
ZENG et al (CN 112581251 A) discloses System with Credit Overdraft and Consumption Loan Function.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HATEM M. ALI whose telephone number is (571) 270-3021, E-mail: Hatem.Ali@USPTO.Gov and FAX (571)270-4021. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, 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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HATEM M ALI/
Examiner, Art Unit 3691