DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in reply to the amendment filed on 10/06/2025.
Claims 1, 4, 9, 10 13, 18 and 19 have been amended.
Claims 7, 8, 16, 17 have been canceled.
Claims 1-6, 9-15, and 18-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 23-28, filed 10/06/2025, with respect to claims 1-20 rejected under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 103 rejection of claims 1-20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim interpretations have been considered and are not persuasive. As an initial matter, the interpretations given below are not objections or 112(b) rejections, but rather, and in accordance with MPEP 2111, how the examiner is construing claim terms in the broadest reasonable manner in an effort to establish a clear record of what applicant intends to claim. As such, Applicants arguments have been considered and the Examiner maintains the claim interpretation, as for example, with respect to the 112(f) interpretation, MPEP 2181 states:
With respect to the first prong of this analysis, a claim element that does not include the term "means" or "step" triggers a rebuttable presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) does not apply. When the claim limitation does not use the term "means," examiners should determine whether the presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) does not apply is overcome. The presumption may be overcome if the claim limitation uses a generic placeholder (a term that is simply a substitute for the term "means"). The following is a list of non-structural generic placeholders that may invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f): "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for." Welker Bearing Co., v. PHD, Inc., 550 F.3d 1090, 1096, 89 USPQ2d 1289, 1293-94 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Mass. Inst. of Tech. v. Abacus Software, 462 F.3d 1344, 1354, 80 USPQ2d 1225, 1228 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Personalized Media, 161 F.3d at 704, 48 USPQ2d at 1886–87; Mas-Hamilton Group v. LaGard, Inc., 156 F.3d 1206, 1214-1215, 48 USPQ2d 1010, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Note that there is no fixed list of generic placeholders that always result in 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation, and likewise there is no fixed list of words that always avoid 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation. Every case will turn on its own unique set of facts.
The “subsystem for…” limitations clearly invoke 112(f) by use of the non-structural generic placeholders “subsystem for” with no other sufficient structure in the limitations and therefor the Examiner must interpret the limitation under 112(f).
As to the intended use language, and In re Lowry, Lowry pertains to printed matter and when patentable weight should be given to printed matter, here the Examiner did not identify the limitations as printed matter, additionally a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. There for the Examiner maintains the claim interpretation.
Applicant's arguments filed 10/06/2025 with respect to claims 1-20 rejected under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues #1:
Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection. The amended claims recite a concrete, technological system and method that together provide a specific, technical solution to real- world problems in automated identity validation, risk-based pricing, and automated generation of compliance-ready financial application documents (including TILA). The claims do more than recite an abstract business concept implemented on a generic computer-they recite a particular data-flow and processing pipeline (device-level data acquisition --external database verification ->generation of numerical confidence scores within a predefined range -- classification based on those scores --conditional device-level data acquisition –automated generation of agreement-based electronic documents) that materially improves the functioning of the underlying computing system and the loan/onboarding workflow.
Examiners response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, the Examiner fails to see how the claims amount to a improvement to the functioning of the computers themselves, and which “software can make non-abstract improvements to computer technology just as hardware improvements can.” Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335. But to be directed to a patent-eligible improvement to computer functionality, the claims must be directed to an improvement to the functionality of the computer or network platform itself. See, e.g., id. 1336–39; DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257–59 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Thus, this inquiry “often turns on whether the claims focus on ‘the specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities . . . or, in-stead, on a process that qualifies as an “abstract idea” for which computers are invoked merely as a tool.’” Finjan, 879 F.3d at 1303 (quoting Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335–36). The claims of the instant application do not enable computers to operate more quickly or efficiently, nor do they solve any technological problem. They merely recite using generic computers for commercial or legal interactions for gathering and analyzing information for a generating financing applications and financing options for a one or more projects. The only improvements identified in the specification are generic speed and efficiency improvements inherent in applying the use of a computer to any task. Therefore, the claimed invention is at most an improvement to the abstract concept wherein a computer is merely used as a tool, similar to Mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase, Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017) or speeding up a loan-application process by enabling borrowers to avoid physically going to or calling each lender and filling out a loan application, LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc., 656 Fed. App'x 991, 996-97 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential);.
Applicant argues #2:
Prong One: Does the Claim Recite an Abstract Idea?
The Examiner characterizes the claims as covering commercial/legal interactions (organizing human activity). Applicant acknowledges that the claims involve financial transactions, but respectfully submits that the claimed subject matter is not directed to the abstract idea alone because the claims recite concrete technical operations, including:
- device-level data acquisition from first/second/third electronic devices;
- comparison of user-supplied "fifth data" with external "clear" databases;
- generation of numerical confidence scores within a predefined range (explicit numeric scoring rather than a mere qualitative determination);
- automated classification of users based on those scores;
- conditional triggering of further device-level data collection when classification indicates additional information is required; and
- automated generation and output of agreement-based electronic documents (including TILA- compliant documents) on user devices.
These concrete operations are not mere mental steps or business concepts; they are machine- implemented, technical operations that cannot be performed purely in the human mind.
Further, Applicant respectfully submits that the claims integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application:
* Concrete hardware-tied implementation: The functions are not disembodied abstractions, but are expressly tied to "one or more hardware processors" and subsystems implemented as programmable instructions (Spec. [0065]). This goes beyond generic computer components the claims recite a specific ordered processing flow including validation, confidence scoring, classification, conditional enrichment, and generation of compliance documents.
Applied AI use: While the Examiner characterizes the Al recitation as generic, the claims recite Al as part of the concrete verification/qualification pipeline, where outputs are confidence scores explicitly mapped to predefined ranges. These scores directly drive further device-level actions (e.g., requesting additional data). This is not a high-level invocation to "use Al," but a specific, applied algorithmic use integrated into the claimed system.
As such, the claims are not directed to an abstract idea (Prong 1, Step 2A: NO).
Step 2A: Integration into a Practical Application Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
Even if the Examiner treats some claim elements as relating to a judicial exception, the amended claims integrate the exception into a practical application for the following reasons:
" Concrete Hardware-Tied Processing: The claims repeatedly tie the recited functions to "one or more hardware processors," subsystems (implemented as programmable instructions executed by processors per [0065]), and electronic devices. The claimed subsystems (data obtaining, user validation, financial application generation, output subsystem, etc.) are functional components that participate in a specific technical pipeline. This is not a mere "field of use" limitation.
" Specific Data-Processing Pipeline: The claims recite a particular ordered sequence that materially changes how identity verification and pricing decisions are made: external-database verification --numeric confidence scoring (predefined range) -- classification --conditional enrichment of data --automated generation of compliance documents. That ordered integration imposes concrete limits on how the process operates and produces technical benefits (improved verification accuracy, reduced
manual review, automated compliance document generation).
" Regulatory-Driven Technical Output: The claims recite generation of TILA and other agreement-based electronic documents as an explicit, machine-generated output.
This is not merely displaying information; it is the automated production of compliance-critical machine-readable documents tied to the rest of the pipeline.
"AI Model Recitation Is Functional and Applied: The claims recite the Al model as being used to determine qualification (qualification determining subsystem). The model is claimed in the context of the overall technical pipeline and used to perform a concrete, domain-specific computation (qualify users for credits), not as an unconstrained instruction to "apply Al." The scoring/classification and conditional data acquisition limitations show how the model's outputs are used in a technical feedback loop.
For these reasons, the claimed subject matter integrates the judicial exception into a practical application.
Thus, the claims amount to significantly more than the alleged abstract idea (Step 2A: YES).
Examiners response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, with respect to device level data acquisition between the devices this is akin several ineligible decisions (see for example Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)).
With respect to comparison of user-supplied "fifth data" with external "clear" databases; generation of numerical confidence scores within a predefined range (explicit numeric scoring rather than a mere qualitative determination); - automated classification of users based on those scores; - conditional triggering of further device-level data collection when classification indicates additional information is required;, these abstract steps being applied with generic computer components, and in Alice, the Supreme Court held that "merely requiring generic computer implementation fails to transform [an] abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." 134 S.Ct. at 2352. Furthermore, in buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1354-55 (Fed.Cir. 2014), the Courts stated that Alice "made clear that a claim directed to an abstract idea does not move into § 101 eligibility territory by merely requiring generic computer implementation" (internal quotation marks omitted). With respect to automated generation and output of agreement-based electronic documents (including TILA- compliant documents) on user devices, there is merely automating manual tasks and using a computer to do so, and as explained above, mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase, Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017) is not eligible subject matter.
With respect to the arguments that the claims are expressly tied to "one or more hardware processors" and subsystems implemented as programmable instructions and the use of AI, merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223-24, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014). See In re Alappat, 33 F.3d 1526, 1545, 31 USPQ2d 1545, 1558 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 88 USPQ2d 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2008), and using a generic machine learning technique in a particular environment, with no inventive concept does not provide an inventive concept, (see Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., Case No. 2023-2437 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 18, 2025)).
Applicant argues #3:
Step 2B: Significantly More Than the Judicial Exception Claims recite additional element(s) that amount to significantly more (inventive concept) than the judicial exception(s).
The amended claims supply "significantly more" than the alleged abstract idea by reciting the ordered combination and technical integration described above. In particular:
- Predefined numeric confidence scoring and classification (explicit numeric ranges and mapping to categories) is a concrete technical mechanism for automated verification and decisioning rather than a generic advisory score. The numeric scoring tied to conditional device-level enrichment produces an automated, closed-loop verification mechanism.
- Conditional device-level enrichment driven by classification is a technical control flow that reduces manual review and improves verification reliability; it is not a conventional or generic "apply computer" step.
- Automated generation of compliance documents (TILA) as an output of the pipeline materially changes the downstream processing and removes manual transcription/assembly, providing a technical improvement to document generation and delivery systems.
- The ordered, interdependent pipeline (data acquisition --verification --numeric scoring -- classification --conditional enrichment --automated legal-document generation) yields a technical synergy: the parts together provide an automated, resilient system for compliance- ready financial application generation that is not taught or suggested by the cited art in the same integrated fashion.
Accordingly, the amended claims recite additional elements that are more than well- understood, routine, or conventional activity.
Thus, the claims amount to significantly more than the alleged abstract idea (Step 2B: YES).
Examiners response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to Step 2A, the claims do not amount to significantly more. Further, MPEP 2106.05(d)(ii) provides that receiving and transmitting data over a network (see buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network), and Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26, 110 USPQ2d 1984-1985 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts", "create electronic records, track multiple transactions, and issue simultaneous instructions");, Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log); , are well-understood routine and conventional, similar to the instant application claims which recites gathering and analyzing information for a generating financing applications and financing options for a one or more projects. See also, Mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase, Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017) or speeding up a loan-application process by enabling borrowers to avoid physically going to or calling each lender and filling out a loan application, LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc., 656 Fed. App'x 991, 996-97 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential);, processing information through a clearing-house, where the business relation is the relationship between a party submitted a credit application (e.g., a car dealer) and funding sources (e.g., banks) when processing credit applications, Dealertrack v. Huber, 674 F.3d 1315, 1331, 101 USPQ2d 1325, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2012) in which the Courts found the claims to ineligible under 35 USC 101 for being directed towards an abstract idea. With respect to the AI Model, in view of the new July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples, which provides additional guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, including artificial intelligence, the Examiner finds the claims ineligible. Similar to Claim 2 of Example 47 in the July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples, the Model is recited at high level of generality such that it amounts to using a generic computer to perform generic computer functions, akin to using a computer to perform repetitive calculations (See MPEP 2106.05(d)), and therefore amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
For the reasons above, the 101 rejection is hereby maintained.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a data obtaining subsystem configured to obtain…, a risk-based price determining subsystem configured to determine…, a data transmission subsystem configured to send…, a qualification determining subsystem configured to determine…, a financial application generation subsystem configured to generate…, an output subsystem configured to provide an output…, a payment processing subsystem configured to select…, a user addition subsystem to provide…, and a user validation subsystem configured to validate… in claims 10-18.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. [0065] of the specification defines the subsystems as in the form of programmable instructions executable by the one or more hardware processors.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
In claims 1, 6, 10, 15, and 19 the clauses “for the one or more second electronic devices to initiate one or more applications;”, “for one or more payment processes…”, “to be sent to the one or more second electronic devices of the one or more second users when the one or more second electronic devices of the one or more second users reject the one or more first risk-based pricing options associated with the one or more projects”, “to map the one or more second data with the one or more third data”, “to be sent to the one or more second electronic devices of the one or more second users upon mapping of the one or more second data with the one or more third data” are interpreted as an intended use/field of use of application links, one or more third data, summaries, electronic documents, agreements. The intended use in the claim merely states the result of the limitation in the claim and adds nothing to the patentability or substance of the claim. See Texas Instruments Inc. v. International Trade Commission, 26 USPQ2d 1010 (Fed. Cir 1993); Griffin v. Bertina, 62 USPQ2d 1431 (Fed. Cir. 22); Amazon.com Inc. v. Bamesandnoble.com Inc., 57 USPQ2d 1747 (Fed. Cir. 21). Hence the intended use limitations are not given patentable weight.
In general, the grammar and intended meaning of terms used in a claim will dictate whether the language limits the claim scope. Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. The following are examples of language that may raise a question as to the limiting effect of the language in a claim:
statements of intended use or field of use,
"adapted to" or "adapted for" clauses,
"wherein" clauses, or
"whereby" clauses.
This list of examples is not intended to be exhaustive. See also MPEP § 2111.04.
The rejections given below are interpreted in light of 35 U.S.C. § 112, rejections and the claim interpretation discussed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, and fails step 2 of the analysis because the focus of the claims is not on the devices themselves or a practical application but rather directed towards an abstract idea, the analysis is provided below.
Step 1 (Statutory Categories) - The claims pass step 1 of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106(III)) as the claims are directed towards a system, method and non-transitory computer-readable medium.
Step 2A – Prong One (Do the claims recite an abstract idea?) - The idea is recited in the claims, in part, by:
obtaining one or more first data from one or more first electronic devices associated with one or more first users, wherein the one or more first data comprise at least one of: name, phone number, and address, of the one or more second users, one or more project categories, estimation of one or more projects, and time duration of the one or more projects being completed;
determining one or more first risk-based pricing options associated with the one or more projects based on the one or more first data obtained from the one or more first users;
sending one or more application links to one or more second users to initiate one or more applications;
obtaining one or more second data from the one or more second users, wherein the one or more second data comprise at least one of: the name, the phone number, the address, at least last four digits of a social security number (SSN), birth date, and annual income, of the one or more second users, an amount requested by the one or more second users, and an option for one or more third users to be added to the one or more second users;
determining whether the one or more second users are qualified to obtain one or more credits associated with the one or more projects by an artificial intelligence (AI) model;
sending the determined one or more first risk-based pricing options associated with the one or more projects to the one or more second users when the one or more second users are qualified to obtain the one or more credits associated with the one or more projects;
determining whether the one or more second users accept the one or more first risk-based pricing options associated with the one or more projects;
determining one or more second risk-based pricing options associated with the one or more projects to be sent to the one or more second users when the one or more second users reject the one or more first risk-based pricing options associated with the one or more projects;
obtaining one or more confirmed information associated with the one or more projects, from the one or more second users, wherein the one or more confirmed information associated with the one or more projects comprise at least one of: one or more names associated with the one or more first users, one or more categories of works associated with the one or more projects, estimation of the works associated with the one or more projects, the time duration of the one or more projects, information associated with one or more ownerships, one or more categories of one or more properties of the one or more second users;
obtaining one or more third data associated with one or more identities of the one or more second users to map the one or more second data with the one or more third data;
obtaining, one or more fourth data associated with the one or more third users from at least one of: the one or more second electronic devices of the one or more second users and one or more third electronic devices of the one or more third users, wherein the one or more fourth data associated with the one or more third users comprise at least one of: the name, the phone number, the address, the at least last four digits of a social security number (SSN), the birth date, and the annual income, of the one or more third users;
validating the one or more first users based on a clear identity confirm process, the clear identity confirm process comprising:
obtaining one or more fifth data associated with the one or more first users from the one or more first electronic devices of the one or more first users;
comparing the one or more fifth data associated with the one or more first users with one or more first prestored data associated with the one or more first users retrieved from one or more clear databases;
generating one or more confidence scores within a pre-defined range for the one or more first users based on the comparison of the one or more fifth data associated with the one or more first users with the one or more first prestored data associated with the one or more first users;
classifying the one or more first users into one or more categories based on the one or more confidence scores generated for the one or more first users:
determining whether the one or more first users need to provide one or more sixth data based on the classification of the one or more first users;
generating the one or more financial applications comprising one or more agreement based electronic documents for one or more payment processes, wherein the one or more agreement based electronic documents comprise at least one of: information associated with one or more credit amounts, and one or more truth in lending agreements (TILA); and
providing an output of the generated one or more financial applications in form of the one or more agreement based electronic documents.
The steps recited above under Step 2A Prong One of the analysis under the broadest reasonable interpretation covers commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is other than reciting one or more hardware processors, one or more first/second/third electronic devices, a user interface, one or more clear databases, memory, a data obtaining subsystem, a risk-based price determining subsystem, a data transmission subsystem, a qualification determining subsystem, a financial application generation subsystem, an output subsystem, a payment processing subsystem, a user addition subsystem, a user validation subsystem, and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium nothing in the claim elements are directed towards anything other than commercial or legal interactions for gathering and analyzing information for a generating financing applications and financing options for a one or more projects. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial or legal interactions, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” groupings of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two (Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?) - This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of one or more hardware processors, one or more first/second/third electronic devices, a user interface, one or more clear databases, memory, a data obtaining subsystem, a risk-based price determining subsystem, a data transmission subsystem, a qualification determining subsystem, a financial application generation subsystem, an output subsystem, a payment processing subsystem, a user addition subsystem, a user validation subsystem, and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. The one or more hardware processors, one or more first/second/third electronic devices, a user interface, one or more clear databases, memory, a data obtaining subsystem, a risk-based price determining subsystem, a data transmission subsystem, a qualification determining subsystem, a financial application generation subsystem, an output subsystem, a payment processing subsystem, a user addition subsystem, a user validation subsystem, and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and limits the judicial exception to the particular environment of computers. [0065] of the specification defines the subsystems as in the form of programmable instructions executable by the one or more hardware processors, akin to mere instructions being implemented with generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components and limiting the judicial exception to a particular environment are not indicative of a practical application (see MPEP 20106.05(f) and MPEP 20106.05(h)). 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 claims are directed towards an abstract idea.
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?) - The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, using the additional elements of one or more hardware processors, one or more first/second/third electronic devices, a user interface, one or more clear databases, memory, a data obtaining subsystem, a risk-based price determining subsystem, a data transmission subsystem, a qualification determining subsystem, a financial application generation subsystem, an output subsystem, a payment processing subsystem, a user addition subsystem, a user validation subsystem, and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium to perform the steps recited in Step 2A Prong One of the analysis amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and limits the judicial exception to the particular environment. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components and limiting the judicial exception to a particular environment does not provide an inventive concept. The additional elements have been considered separately, and as an ordered combination, and do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the judicial exception. Further, MPEP 2106.05(d)(ii) provides that receiving and transmitting data over a network (see buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network), and Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26, 110 USPQ2d 1984-1985 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts", "create electronic records, track multiple transactions, and issue simultaneous instructions");, Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log); , are well-understood routine and conventional, similar to the instant application claims which recites gathering and analyzing information for a generating financing applications and financing options for a one or more projects. See also, Mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase, Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017) or speeding up a loan-application process by enabling borrowers to avoid physically going to or calling each lender and filling out a loan application, LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc., 656 Fed. App'x 991, 996-97 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential);, processing information through a clearing-house, where the business relation is the relationship between a party submitted a credit application (e.g., a car dealer) and funding sources (e.g., banks) when processing credit applications, Dealertrack v. Huber, 674 F.3d 1315, 1331, 101 USPQ2d 1325, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2012) in which the Courts found the claims to ineligible under 35 USC 101 for being directed towards an abstract idea. Further, with respect to the providing an output on a user interface step, this falls to transform the claims into patent eligible material, as this is part of the field of use and technical environment in which the abstract idea is being implement and does not result in an improvement to additional elements (see MPEP 2106.05(h) Electric Power Group court decision). With respect to the AI Model, in view of the new July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples, which provides additional guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, including artificial intelligence, the Examiner finds the claims ineligible. Similar to Claim 2 of Example 47 in the July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples, the Model is recited at high level of generality such that it amounts to using a generic computer to perform generic computer functions, akin to using a computer to perform repetitive calculations (See MPEP 2106.05(d)), and therefore amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims have been given the full analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination as a whole. For instance, claims 2-6, 9, 11-15, 18 and 20 are all steps that fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” groupings of abstract ideas, generally linking the use of the judicial exemption to the computing environment and further limiting the abstract idea, similar to as discussed in the evaluation above. The Dependent claims when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea further describing commercial and legal interactions. The additional limitations of the dependent claims when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
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 GREGORY S CUNNINGHAM II whose telephone number is (313)446-6564. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am-4pm.
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, Bennett Sigmond can be reached at 303-297-4411. 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.
GREGORY S. CUNNINGHAM II
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3694
/GREGORY S CUNNINGHAM II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694