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 the Claims
This is a non-final office action prepared in response to Amendments to the Claims and Remarks submitted by Applicant on August 3, 2026 relating to U.S. Patent Application No. 16/666,202 filed on May 16, 2024. Claims 21, 22 and 32-40 have been amended. Claims 24 and 25 are cancelled. Claims 21-23 and 26-40 are pending and have been examined.
Remarks to Arguments
Applicant’s Remarks, submitted on August 3, 2026, have been fully considered, however, are not persuasive.
With respect to the Section 112(b) Rejection, Applicant has amended Claims 21-22 and 32-40 and has cancelled Claims 24-25 and asserts that appropriate corrections have been entered thereby rendering the Section 112(b) Rejections moot. (Remarks, p. 10). Examiner respectfully disagrees. The amendments to independent Claims 21 and 32 have not rendered all of the Section 112(b) Rejections moot. (See the Claim Interpretation Under Section 112(f) and accompanying the Section 112(b) Rejection below). In addition, Section 112(b) Rejections are asserted with respect to Claims 21, 23, 30 and 32 for lack of antecedent basis. (See Section 112(b) Rejections below). Insofar as Applicant has amended independent Claim 32 to recite a non-transitory computer readable medium, the Section 112(b) rejection of Claims 32-40 as being indefinite for comprising elements of both a method and system claim pursuant to MPEP 2173.05(p) is withdrawn. A new Section 112(b) rejection has been made for Claims 21-31 as being indefinite for comprising elements of both a digital lending platform and a method claim pursuant to MPEP 2173.05(p). (See the Section 112(b) Rejection below).
With respect to the Section 101 Rejection, Applicant has amended independent Claims 21 and 32 and asserts that they address a computer-operational problem that incoming data may continue to arrive while a downstream system is unable to process the data because of a processing bottleneck or power outage. Applicant asserts that the claimed solution specifies how the incoming data is routed through an API, ordinarily queued for processing, and separately preserved in an SQL lead cache when the downstream adverse condition occurs. The API, lead queue, and SQL cache therefore operate together according to defined data-routing and storage rules and are not merely generic computer components used as tools to perform the commercial concept. (Remarks, p. 10). Applicant further asserts that the amended combination also recites significantly more than the alleged abstract idea as the claims do not broadly cover receiving or evaluating sales leads in that they require a particular dual-destination data flow to a lead queue and lead cache, queue-based handling of incoming leads, and condition-dependent SQL caching tied to identified downstream failures. (Remarks, pp. 10-11). Examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional elements and technical limitations recited in the amended claims are recited at a high level of generality and are being used as tools to implement the abstract idea. The claims do not recite a technical solution to a technical problem such as to the functioning of a computer or to technology or to a technical field and, as such, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more. (See Section 101 Rejection below). The Section 101 Rejection is maintained.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112(f)
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.
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) because the claim limitations use 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. The claim limitations are: "a lead intake engine” in Claim 32; “a lead processing module” in Claims 21, 22, 32 and 33; “a lead management system optimized for speed-to-contact” in Claim 25; “a validating module for validating loan inquiries” and “a lead enriching module for coordinating with third-party data-enriching providers to enrich the original data” in Claims 22 and 33.
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 structures described in the specification as performing the claimed functions, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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 limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed functions so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim limitations a validating module for validating loan inquiries and a lead enriching module to coordinate with third-party data-enriching providers in Claim 33 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the aforementioned limitations. Although the Specification discloses in several locations that the validating module validates loan inquiries, (Pars. 5, 13,16, 49, 58 and 78), however, it does not disclose how the validating module validates the loan inquiries. Also, although the Specification discloses in several locations that the lead enriching module coordinates with third-party data-enriching providers to enrich the original data, (Pars. 5, 13, 16, 49, 58 and 78), it does not disclose how the lead enriching module coordinates with third-party data-enriching providers to enrich the original data. The claims are therefore indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See MPEP 2161.01, explaining that the problem arises when “the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed.”
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claims so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f);
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 21, 23, 30 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention.
Independent Claim 21 recites in pertinent part “provide, via an application programming interface of the lead intake engine, original data of the incoming sales leads to a lead queue and the lead cache”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the lead intake engine” which renders Claim 21 and its dependents indefinite.
Claim 23 recites in pertinent part “… wherein the one or more dialer tables of the phone system are concomitantly sorted in accordance with the scores of the sales leads by the lead intake engine ...”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the lead intake engine” which renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 30 recites in pertinent part “… wherein the loan origination system is configured to …”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the loan origination system” which renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 32 recites in pertinent part “…creating a sales-purposed record in a sales database of the loan origination system for each sales lead …”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the loan origination system” which renders the claim indefinite.
Independent Claim 21 is indefinite because it is unclear whether the claim is directed to a method or an apparatus. On the one hand, the claim is directed to a “digital lending platform” that comprises a processor and a phone system. On the other hand, all of the limitations from “provide” onwards describe method steps that do not appear to have any claimed connection to the structure of the apparatus. For example, the claim does not indicate that the memory stores instructions that when executed, cause the processor to perform operations comprising: provide … . This renders Claim 21 (and its dependents, Claims 22-31) indefinite. (See MPEP 2173.05(p)(II).
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 21-23 and 26-40 are rejected pursuant to 35 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 - Statutory Class
Claims 21-23 and 26-31 are directed to a digital lending platform and are non-statutory insofar as they are not directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter. Claims 32-40 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium. Therefore, on its face, each of Claims 32-40 is directed to a statutory class of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1 – Abstract Idea
Amended Claim 21 recites receiving incoming sales leads, provide original data of the incoming sales leads to a lead queue; queue the incoming sales leads in the lead queue; present a customized script comprising one or more questions for a call center loan representative ("CLR") to ask a potential borrower associated with a sales lead; capture responses provided by the potential borrower to the one or more questions; generate recognized text corresponding to the responses; generate enriched sales leads by enriching at least a portion of the incoming sales leads with complementary data, score at least the enriched sales leads with scores via a scoring algorithm, dialing phone numbers sorted in accordance with the scores of at least the enriched sales leads, creating a sales-purposed record for each incoming sales lead wherein the sales-purposed record is updated at least until the dialer dials a phone number associated with the record. The abstract idea recited in Claim 21 recites management of sales leads by processing sales leads, including enriching original data of at least a portion of incoming sales leads with complementary data to convert the portion of incoming sales leads into enriched sales leads, and scoring the enriched sales which involves commercial interactions falling under “Certain methods of organizing human activity” in MPEP 2106.04(a). Claim 32 recites the same abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2 – Practical Application
Amended Claim 21 recites a processor, a network interface, a network, a phone interface, one or more dialer tables, a dialer, a memory communicatively coupled to the processor, a lead intake engine, a lead cache, a lead processing module, a dialer of a phone interface, an application programing interface and a sales database. The amended claim also recites the additional technical limitation “cache the incoming sales leads in the lead cache should an adverse condition occur downstream, wherein the adverse condition comprises a processing bottleneck or a power outage, and wherein the lead cache comprises a Structured Query Language (SQL) database”. When the operation of the additional technical limitation is considered as a whole, along with the additional elements, these limitations are being recited at a high level of generality and are being used as tools to implement the abstract idea. The amended claims do not provide technical improvements such as to the functioning of a computer or to technology or to a technical field and thus they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B – Significantly more
As set forth in the discussion in Step 2A, Prong 2, above, the additional elements and additional technical limitation are recited at a high level of generality and are being used as tools to implement the abstract idea. They do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not add significantly more to the abstract idea.
Dependent claims
Claim 22 (remove duplicates of the sales leads; validate loan inquiries of the sales leads; and enrich the original data of the portion of incoming sales leads with the complementary data to convert the portion of incoming sales leads into the enriched sales leads), Claims 23 and 34 (the enriched sales leads are intermittently further enriched by third-party data-enriching providers by way of an application programming interface of a lead management system that is exposed to the third-party data-enriching providers, wherein any of the enriched sales leads further enriched by the third-party data-enriching providers are rescored by the scoring algorithm, and wherein the one or more dialer tables of the phone system are concomitantly sorted in accordance with the scores of the sales leads by the lead intake engine while the enriched sales leads are further enriched by the third-party data-enriching providers), Claims 26 and 35 (the complementary data is selected from Telephone Consumer Protection Act compliance data including phone type and subscriber information; subject property information including address, legal description, year built, or a combination thereof; borrower personal information including Social Security number, date of birth, age, ethnicity, race, gender, veteran status, disability status, education information, address history, marital status, dependent information, or a combination thereof; borrower employment information including employment history, income, or a combination thereof, and borrower financial information including credit rating, financial account information, asset information, value of one or more existing properties, equity in one or more existing properties, loan-to-value ratio, or a combination thereof), Claims 27 and 36 (the phone system includes a scripter for providing customized scripts to customer liaison representatives in a call center, the scripter configured to provide each customized script with one or more questions for each sales lead in accordance with the original data, the complementary data, or the combination thereof of the sales lead; an age of the sales lead; a campaign of the sales lead; or a combination thereof), Claims 28 and 37 (any answers provided by potential borrowers to the questions asked by the customer liaison representatives from the customized scripts are manually or automatically logged in the one or more dialer tables to enrich the original data of a different portion of the incoming sales leads and, thereby, convert the different portion of incoming sales leads into normalized sales leads, further enrich the enriched sales leads with the answers provided by the potential borrowers, or both, and wherein each normalized sales lead or enriched sales lead further enriched with the answers provided by the potential borrowers is rescored by the scoring algorithm up to at least a time of call transfer from a customer liaison representative to a licensed loan officer by way of the phone system), Claims 29 and 38 (each licensed loan officer of a plurality of licensed loan officers is assigned a unique phone number and one or more associated licensed loan officer attributes, the one or more attributes of the licensed loan officer selected from one or more licensing states, experience with one or more particular loan products, one or more languages spoken, and combinations thereof, and wherein call transfers from the customer liaison representatives to any available licensed loan officers are in accordance with matches between the one or more LLO attributes and the normalized sales leads or enriched sales leads further enriched with the answers provided by the potential borrowers), Claims 30 and 39 (further comprising one or more enterprise marketing databases for storing marketing information including one or more points of interaction for each potential borrower having established at least one point of interaction with the digital lending platform, wherein the loan origination system is configured to request the marketing information and populate the sales-purposed record for each sales lead with the one or more points of interaction for each potential borrower) Claims 31 and 40 (the sales database is configured with a configurable mask or a mask-enabling viewing tool to mask information not relevant to one or more sales strategies, information potentially detrimental to the one or more sales strategies, or a combination thereof) and Claim 33 (removing duplicates of the sales leads with a deduplicating filter of the lead processing module; validating loan inquiries of the sales leads, the original data of the incoming sales leads, or both with a validating module of the lead processing module; and enriching the original data of the portion of incoming sales leads with the complementary data to convert the portion of incoming sales leads into the enriched sales leads by way of a lead-enriching module configured to coordinate with third-party data-enriching providers) contain additional elements (which are underlined above) that are recited at a high level of generality and used as tools to implement the abstract idea and/or further define and merely add specificity to the abstract idea. The dependent claims fail to add significantly more to the abstract idea.
As such, Claims 21-23 and 26-40 are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEORGE PROIOS whose telephone number is (571)272-4573. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bennett M Sigmond can be reached on 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.
/GEORGE N. PROIOS/Examiner, Art Unit 3694
/BENNETT M SIGMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3694
Prosecution Insights