DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communications filed on 11/18/2025.
Claims 1-3, 11-12, and 17-18 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 8, 13, and 15 have been canceled.
Claims 21-23 have been newly added.
Claims 1-7, 9-12, 14, and 16-23 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made Non-Final.
Examiner Request
The Applicant is requested to indicate where in the specification there is support for future claim amendments to avoid U.S.C 112(a) issues that can arise. The Examiner thanks the Applicant in advance.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/18/2025 has been entered.
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 1-7, 9-12, 14, and 16-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of processing and updating a loan approval value without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed to a method, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Claim 1 is directed to a computer-implemented method for continuously updating loan data stored in a blockchain, comprising: determining, by a processor, a loan approval value based on first information associated with a customer; creating, by the processor, a first block including a first set of transactions storing the first information and the loan approval value; determining a first set of hash values associated with the first set of transactions; determining a first combined hash value based at least in part on the first set of hash values associated with the first set of transactions; and using the first combined hash value to cryptographically link the first block to a previous block of the blockchain; verifying, by the processor, that second information associated with the customer satisfies a loan requirement, the loan requirement comprising at least one of an account balance requirement or a proof of employment status requirement; determining, by the processor, and based on verifying that the second information satisfies the loan requirement, an updated loan approval value; creating, by the processor, a second block including a second set of transactions storing the second information and the updated loan approval value; and cryptographically linking the second block to the first block. These series of steps describe the abstract idea of processing and updating a loan approval value (with the exception of the italicized and bolded terms above), which correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity: commercial and legal interactions and/or fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk). The system limitations, e.g., a blockchain, processor, first block, a first set of hash values, a first combined hash value, previous block, and second block do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. Thus, claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of a blockchain, processor, first block, a first set of hash values, a first combined hash value, previous block, and second block, are no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements listed above are all recited at a high level of generality and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computing arrangement. Specifically, the additional elements, a blockchain, processor, first block, a first set of hash values, a first combined hash value, previous block, and second block, are all recited at a high level of generality and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computing arrangement. Merely invoking a blockchain, processor, first block, a first set of hash values, a first combined hash value, previous block, and second block is similar to invoking software and software components. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than to implement the claimed invention (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, the recitations of additional elements do not meaningfully apply the abstract idea; and hence do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, claim 1 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO).
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of a blockchain, processor, first block, a first set of hash values, a first combined hash value, previous block, and second block, are recited at a high level of generality in that it results in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements when considered separately and as an ordered combination do not amount to add significantly more as these limitations provide nothing more than to simply apply the exception in a generic computer environment (Step 2B: NO). Thus, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-10, 21, and 23 are directed to a method, which recites the steps that describe the abstract idea of processing and updating a loan approval value, and corresponds to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity: commercial and legal interactions and/or fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk). Specifically, claims 2, 10, and 23 are directed to a method, which recites the steps: wherein the processor cryptographically links the first block and the second block in the blockchain using the first combined hash value and a second combined hash value associated with the second set of transactions; further comprising causing, by the processor, a user interface of a computing device associated with the customer to display at least one of the loan approval value or the updated loan approval value; and wherein cryptographically linking the second block to the first block comprises: determining a second set of hash values associated with the second set of transactions; determining a second combined hash value based at least in part on the second set of hash values associated with the second set of transactions; and using the second combined hash value to cryptographically link the second block to the first block. These series of steps describe the abstract idea of processing and updating a loan approval value (with the exception of the italicized and bolded terms above), which correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity: commercial and legal interactions and/or fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk). Thus, claims 2-7, 9-10, 21, and 23 are directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements listed above are all recited at a high level of generality and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computing arrangement. Specifically, the additional elements, a blockchain, processor, first block, a first set of hash values, first combined hash value, previous block, second block, second combined hash value, user interface, computing device, and second set of hash values, are all recited at a high level of generality and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computing arrangement. Merely invoking a blockchain, processor, first block, a first set of hash values, first combined hash value, previous block, second block, second combined hash value, user interface, computing device, and second set of hash values is similar to invoking software and software components. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than to implement the claimed invention (MPEP 2106.05(f)).Therefore, the recitations of additional elements do not meaningfully apply the abstract idea; and hence do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Furthermore, the additional elements: a blockchain, processor, first block, a first set of hash values, first combined hash value, previous block, second block, second combined hash value, user interface, computing device, and second set of hash values, do not amount to add significantly more as these limitations provide nothing more than to simply apply the exception in a generic computer environment.
Examiner has identified claim 11 as the claim that represents the claimed invention presented in independent claims 11 and 17.
Claim 11 is directed to a system, which is one of the statutory categories of invention; and Claim 17 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable media, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Claim 11 is directed to a computer system configured to continuously update loan data stored in a blockchain, the computer system comprising: a processor; and memory storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the computer system to: determine a loan approval value based on first information associated with a customer; create a first block including a first set of transactions storing the first information and the loan approval value; cryptographically link the first block to the blockchain, comprising: determining a first set of hash values associated with the first set of transactions; determining a first combined hash value based at least in part on the first set of hash values associated with the first set of transactions; using the first combined hash value to cryptographically link the first block to a previous block of the blockchain; verify that second information associated with the customer satisfies a loan requirement, the loan requirement comprising at least one of an account balance requirement or a proof of employment status requirement; determine, based on verifying that the second information satisfies the loan requirement, an updated loan approval value; and create a second block including a second set of transactions storing the second information and the updated loan approval value; cryptographically link the first block to the blockchain, comprising: determining a second set of hash values associated with the second set of transactions; determining a second combined hash value based at least in part on the second set of hash values associated with the second set of transactions; and using the second combined hash value to cryptographically link the second block to the first block. These series of steps describe the abstract idea of processing and updating a loan approval value (with the exception of the italicized and bolded terms above), which correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity: commercial and legal interactions and/or fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk). The system limitations, e.g., a computer system, blockchain, processor, memory, first block, a first set of hash values, first combined hash value, previous block, second block, second set of hash values, and second combined hash value do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. Thus, claim 11 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of a computer system, blockchain, processor, memory, first block, a first set of hash values, first combined hash value, previous block, second block, second set of hash values, and second combined hash value, are no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements listed above are all recited at a high level of generality and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computing arrangement. Specifically, the additional elements of a computer system, blockchain, processor, memory, first block, a first set of hash values, first combined hash value, previous block, second block, second set of hash values, and second combined hash value, are all recited at a high level of generality and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computing arrangement. Merely invoking a computer system, blockchain, processor, memory, first block, a first set of hash values, first combined hash value, previous block, second block, second set of hash values, and second combined hash value is similar to invoking software and software components. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than to implement the claimed invention (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, the recitations of additional elements do not meaningfully apply the abstract idea; and hence do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, claim 11 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO).
Claim 11 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of a computer system, blockchain, processor, memory, first block, a first set of hash values, first combined hash value, previous block, second block, second set of hash values, and second combined hash value, are recited at a high level of generality in that it results in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements when considered separately and as an ordered combination do not amount to add significantly more as these limitations provide nothing more than to simply apply the exception in a generic computer environment (Step 2B: NO). Thus, claim 11 is not patent eligible.
Similar arguments can be extended to the other independent claim, claim 17; and hence, claim 17 is rejected on similar grounds as claim 1.
Dependent claims 12, 14, 16, 18-20, and 22 are directed to a system and non-transitory computer-readable media, respectively, which perform the steps that describe the abstract idea of processing and updating a loan approval value, and corresponds to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity: commercial and legal interactions and/or fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk). Thus, claims 12, 14, 16, 18-20, and 22 are directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements listed above are all recited at a high level of generality and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computing arrangement. Specifically, the additional elements of a computer system, blockchain, processor, memory, first block, a first set of hash values, first combined hash value, previous block, second block, second set of hash values, and second combined hash value, are all recited at a high level of generality and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computing arrangement. Merely invoking a computer system, blockchain, processor, memory, first block, a first set of hash values, first combined hash value, previous block, second block, second set of hash values, and second combined hash value is similar to invoking software and software components. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than to implement the claimed invention (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, the recitations of additional elements do not meaningfully apply the abstract idea; and hence do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Furthermore, the additional elements: a computer system, blockchain, processor, memory, first block, a first set of hash values, first combined hash value, previous block, second block, second set of hash values, and second combined hash value, do not amount to add significantly more as these limitations provide nothing more than to simply apply the exception in a generic computer environment.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-10, 12, 14, 16, and 18-23 have further defined the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1, 11, and 17; and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, and hence are abstract in nature for the reason presented above. The dependent claims 2-7, 9-10, 12, 14, 16, and 18-23 do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, dependent claims 2-7, 9-10, 12, 14, 16, and 18-23 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Thus, claims 1-7, 9-12, 14, and 16-23 are not patent-eligible.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AlA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-12, 14, and 16-23 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 8, 11, 14, 16, and 20-22 of U.S. Patent No. 12,014,415. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-12, 14, and 16-23 of the instant application are anticipated by patent claims 1, 4, 8, 11, 14, 16, and 20-22 of U.S. Patent No. 12,014,415. See chart below:
Instant Application No. 18/666,481
US Patent No. 12,014,415
For ease of comprehension, below contains only relevant and redacted claim language from the allowed patented application.
Claims 1, 11, and 17: A computer-implemented method for continuously updating loan data stored in a blockchain, comprising:
A computer system configured to continuously update loan data stored in a blockchain, the computer system comprising: a processor; and memory storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the computer system to:
One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions for continuously updating loan data stored in a blockchain that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to:
determining, by a processor, a loan approval value based on first information associated with a customer;
creating, by the processor, a first block including a first set of transactions storing the first information and the loan approval value; determining a first set of hash values associated with the first set of transactions; determining a first combined hash value based at least in part on the first set of hash values associated with the first set of transactions;
verifying, by the processor, that second information associated with the customer satisfies a loan requirement, the loan requirement comprising a minimum account balance;
using the first combined hash value to cryptographically link the first block to a previous block of the blockchain; verifying, by the processor, that second information associated with the customer satisfies a loan requirement, the loan requirement comprising at least one of an account balance requirement or a proof of employment status requirement;
determining, by the processor, and based on verifying that the second information satisfies the loan requirement, an updated loan approval value; creating, by the processor, a second block including a second set of transactions storing the second information and the updated loan approval value; and cryptographically linking the second block to the first block.
Claims 1, 8, and 14: A computer-implemented method comprising:
A system comprising: one or more processors; and a memory configured to store non-transitory computer executable instructions, that when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to:
A non-transitory computer-readable memory storing thereon instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
receiving, by one or more processors, first information corresponding to a customer, the first information being used to determine a mortgage approval amount associated with the customer; calculating, by the one or more processors, the mortgage approval amount based at least in part on the first information;
compiling, by the one or more processors, a first block for storage on a blockchain in a memory, the first block including the first information and the mortgage approval amount, wherein compiling the first block includes computing a first hash value using a cryptographic hash function and assigning the first hash value to the first block;
verifying, by the one or more processors, that the second information meets qualifications for maintaining mortgage-ready status of the customer, wherein the qualifications include at least one of a down payment amount or proof of employment status.
receiving, by the one or more processors, second information corresponding to the customer, the second information including updates of the first information; calculating, by the one or more processors, an updated mortgage approval amount associated with the customer based at least in part upon the second information;
compiling, by the one or more processors, a second block for storage on the blockchain in the memory, the second block including the second information and the updated mortgage approval amount, wherein compiling the second block includes computing a second hash value using the cryptographic hash function and the first hash value, and assigning the second hash value to the second block;
Claims 2, 12, and 18: wherein the processor cryptographically links the first block and the second block in the blockchain using the first combined hash value and a second combined hash value associated with the second set of transactions.
Claim 22: wherein the first block and the second block are cryptographically linked in the blockchain based at least in part on the first hash value and the second hash value.
Claim 4: further comprising: receiving, by the processor, the first information at a first time; and receiving, by the processor, the second information at a second time that is later than the first time.
Claims 4, 11, 16, and 20: wherein the second information corresponding to the customer is updated in a pre-set time interval or in real- time; wherein the first information corresponding to the customer is updated in a pre-set time interval or in real-time.
Claim 5: wherein the second information is an updated instance of a same type of information as the first information.
Claim 1, 8, and 14: receiving, by the one or more processors, second information corresponding to the customer, the second information including updates of the first information.
Claim 6: wherein at least one of the first information or the second information is received from the blockchain.
Claim 1, 8, and 14: receiving, by the one or more processors, second information corresponding to the customer, the second information including updates of the first information; calculating, by the one or more processors, an updated mortgage approval amount associated with the customer based at least in part upon the second information; compiling, by the one or more processors, a second block for storage on the blockchain in the memory, the second block including the second information and the updated mortgage approval amount.
Claims 7, 14, and 19: wherein at least one of the first information or the second information is received from a memory storage location corresponding to an identifier of the customer;
wherein the computer-executable instructions cause the computer system to receive the first information and the second information from at least one of: the blockchain, or a memory storage location corresponding to an identifier of the customer
Claim 21: receiving, by the one or more processors, a request for a mortgage associated with the customer, the request including a customer identification number and a mortgage loan amount; identifying, by the one or more processors and using the customer identification number, the second block on the blockchain; retrieving, by the one or more processors, the updated mortgage approval amount from the second block;
Claims 1, 8, and 14: receiving, by the one or more processors, second information corresponding to the customer, the second information including updates of the first information; calculating, by the one or more processors, an updated mortgage approval amount associated with the customer based at least in part upon the second information; compiling, by the one or more processors, a second block for storage on the blockchain in the memory, the second block including the second information and the updated mortgage approval amount. Claim 21: receiving, by the one or more processors, a request for a mortgage associated with the customer, the request including a customer identification number and a mortgage loan amount; identifying, by the one or more processors and using the customer identification number, the second block on the blockchain; retrieving, by the one or more processors, the updated mortgage approval amount from the second block;
Claims 9, 16, and 20: wherein: the loan approval value stored in the first block indicates that, at a first time, the customer has an approved status for a loan at a maximum value indicated by the loan approval value, and the updated loan approval value stored in the second block, determined based on verifying that the second information satisfies the loan requirement, indicates that the customer maintains, at a second time, the approved status for the loan at an updated maximum value indicated by the updated loan approval value.
Claims 1, 8, and 14: receiving, by one or more processors, first information corresponding to a customer, the first information being used to determine a mortgage approval amount associated with the customer; calculating, by the one or more processors, the mortgage approval amount based at least in part on the first information; compiling, by the one or more processors, a first block for storage on a blockchain in a memory, the first block including the first information and the mortgage approval amount, wherein compiling the first block includes computing a first hash value using a cryptographic hash function and assigning the first hash value to the first block; verifying, by the one or more processors, that the second information meets qualifications for maintaining mortgage-ready status of the customer, wherein the qualifications include at least one of a down payment amount or proof of employment status; receiving, by the one or more processors, second information corresponding to the customer, the second information including updates of the first information; calculating, by the one or more processors, an updated mortgage approval amount associated with the customer based at least in part upon the second information; compiling, by the one or more processors, a second block for storage on the blockchain in the memory, the second block including the second information and the updated mortgage approval amount, wherein compiling the second block includes computing a second hash value using the cryptographic hash function and the first hash value, and assigning the second hash value to the second block
Claim 10: further comprising causing, by the processor, a user interface of a computing device associated with the customer to display at least one of the loan approval value or the updated loan approval value.
Claim 8: cause the system to: receive first information corresponding to a customer, the first information being used to determine a mortgage approval amount associated with the customer; calculate the mortgage approval amount based at least in part on the first information; calculate an updated mortgage approval amount associated with the customer based at least in part upon the second information;
Claims 14 and 19: wherein the computer-executable instructions cause the computer system to receive the first information and the second information from at least one of: the blockchain, or a memory storage location corresponding to an identifier of the customer
Claims 1, 8, and 14: receiving, by the one or more processors, second information corresponding to the customer, the second information including updates of the first information; calculating, by the one or more processors, an updated mortgage approval amount associated with the customer based at least in part upon the second information; compiling, by the one or more processors, a second block for storage on the blockchain in the memory, the second block including the second information and the updated mortgage approval amount.
Claim 21: receiving, by the one or more processors, a request for a mortgage associated with the customer, the request including a customer identification number and a mortgage loan amount; identifying, by the one or more processors and using the customer identification number, the second block on the blockchain; retrieving, by the one or more processors, the updated mortgage approval amount from the second block;
Claims 21 and 22: wherein: the first information stored in the first block of the blockchain comprises information of a first type; and the second information stored in the second block of the blockchain comprises information of a second type different from the first type.
Claims 1 and 8: receiving, by one or more processors, first information corresponding to a customer, the first information being used to determine a mortgage approval amount associated with the customer; calculating, by the one or more processors, the mortgage approval amount based at least in part on the first information; compiling, by the one or more processors, a first block for storage on a blockchain in a memory, the first block including the first information and the mortgage approval amount; compiling, by the one or more processors, a second block for storage on the blockchain in the memory, the second block including the second information and the updated mortgage approval amount, wherein compiling the second block includes computing a second hash value using the cryptographic hash function and the first hash value, and assigning the second hash value to the second block;
Claim 23: wherein cryptographically linking the second block to the first block comprises: determining a second set of hash values associated with the second set of transactions; determining a second combined hash value based at least in part on the second set of hash values associated with the second set of transactions; and using the second combined hash value to cryptographically link the second block to the first block.
Claim 1: receiving, by the one or more processors, second information corresponding to the customer, the second information including updates of the first information; calculating, by the one or more processors, an updated mortgage approval amount associated with the customer based at least in part upon the second information; compiling, by the one or more processors, a second block for storage on the blockchain in the memory, the second block including the second information and the updated mortgage approval amount, wherein compiling the second block includes computing a second hash value using the cryptographic hash function and the first hash value, and assigning the second hash value to the second block;
Claim 22: wherein the first block and the second block are cryptographically linked in the blockchain based at least in part on the first hash value and the second hash value.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 11/18/2025 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive due to the following reasons:
With respect to the rejection of 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant arguments are moot in view of the grounds of rejections presented above in this office action. The arguments are addressed to the extent they apply to the amended claims.
Applicant argues that “applicant's claims are not directed to an abstract idea ….. Applicant's claims are not directed to an abstract idea….independent claim 1, as amended, recites a computer-implemented method continuously updating loan data stored in a blockchain ….. These operations involve complex operations of manipulating the data stored in a blockchain system for mortgage application and approval…..Independent claims 11 and 17, although different in scope from independent claim 1, have been amended to include similar features. Applicant respectfully submits that performing the technical elements recited above for using a blockchain to continuously update loan data, do not directly recite elements for implementing contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing, sales, or business relations. Similarly, the above-recited technical elements do not relate fundamentally to commerce or the economy. Although Applicant's claims relate tangentially to obtaining loans, the claim features are fundamentally directed to continuously receiving and storing data as sets of transactions in new blocks in a blockchain system. Applicant respectfully submits that there is no indication that the pending claims, by creating and cryptographically linking new blocks to a blockchain relating to a loan approval process for a customer, are directed to any type of activity that falls within the "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly Applicant's claims do not recite an abstract idea in the "commercial or legal interactions" sub- grouping or in the "fundamental economic principles or practices" in the "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" grouping. Accordingly, because Applicant's claims do not recite an abstract idea in any of the groupings enumerated by the USPTO, Applicant's claims do not recite a judicial exception and are thus patent-eligible. For at least this reason, Applicant respectfully requests that the Office withdraw the § 101 rejections of the pending claims.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Under Step 2A: Prong 1, Examiner respectfully notes that claims 1, 11, and 17, as amended, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of processing and updating a loan approval value; without significantly more. The series of steps recited in claims 1, 11, and 17, as amended, describe the abstract idea of processing and updating a loan approval value, which correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity: commercial and legal interactions and/or fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk). Furthermore, the system limitations, e.g., a computer system, blockchain, processor, memory, first block, a first set of hash values, first combined hash value, previous block, second block, second set of hash values, and second combined hash value do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. Moreover, as previously discussed, Examiner respectfully notes that the claims are first analyzed in the absence of technology to determine if it recites an abstract idea. The additional limitations of technology are then considered to determine if it restricts the claim from reciting an abstract idea. In this case, and as discussed in the Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, it is determined that the additional limitations of technology do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. Furthermore, as previously discussed, Examiner respectfully notes that the recited features in the limitations: “computer system configured to continuously update loan data stored in a blockchain, the computer system comprising: a processor; and memory storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the computer system to: determine a loan approval value based on first information associated with a customer; create a first block including a first set of transactions storing the first information and the loan approval value; cryptographically link the first block to the blockchain, comprising: determining a first set of hash values associated with the first set of transactions; determining a first combined hash value based at least in part on the first set of hash values associated with the first set of transactions; using the first combined hash value to cryptographically link the first block to a previous block of the blockchain; verify that second information associated with the customer satisfies a loan requirement, the loan requirement comprising at least one of an account balance requirement or a proof of employment status requirement; determine, based on verifying that the second information satisfies the loan requirement, an updated loan approval value; and create a second block including a second set of transactions storing the second information and the updated loan approval value; cryptographically link the first block to the blockchain, comprising: determining a second set of hash values associated with the second set of transactions; determining a second combined hash value based at least in part on the second set of hash values associated with the second set of transactions; and using the second combined hash value to cryptographically link the second block to the first block” are simply making use of a computer and the computer limitations do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea as discussed above under Step 2A-Prong 1 of the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection.
Hence, Examiner has also considered each and every arguments under Step 2A-Prong 1 and concludes that these arguments are not persuasive. For example, under Step 2A-Prong 1, Examiner considers each and every limitation to determine if the claim recites an abstract idea. In this case, it is determined that the claim recites an abstract idea and the additional limitations of a computer device does not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. The recited steps, as amended, are abstract in nature as there are no technical/technology improvements as a result of these steps. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea. Whether the claim integrates the abstract idea into a practical application by providing technical/technology improvements are considered under Step 2A-Prong 2.
Applicant argues that “Applicant's claims are not directed to a judicial exception…. Applicant's claims do recite additional elements beyond the alleged abstract ideas. For example, amended independent claim 1 recites continuously updating loan data stored in a blockchain, including steps of "creating [a] first block including a first set of transactions storing the first information and the loan approval value," and "cryptographically linking the first block to the blockchain, comprising: determining a first set of hash values associated with the first set of transactions; determining a first combined hash value based at least in part on the first set of hash values associated with the first set of transactions; and using the first combined hash value to cryptographically link the first block to a previous block of the blockchain." Independent claim 1, as amended, further recites, "creating [a] a second block including a second set of transactions storing the second information and the updated loan approval value," and "cryptographically linking the second block to the blockchain." Independent claims 11 and 17 are similarly amended. Even if some elements of claims 1, 11, and 17 are directed to judicial exceptions (which Applicant does not concede) at least these additional elements are outside the alleged abstract ideas. To the contrary, Applicant respectfully submits that the limitations of amended independent claim 1, when considered in ordered combination, are indicative of integration of the inventive concepts into a practical application. The claims recite limitations applying and using the alleged abstract idea in a meaningful way using specific blockchain technologies, beyond mere general linking of the idea to a generalized technological environment…. Accordingly, the technical improvements provided by the recited "additional elements" illustrate that the alleged abstract ideas are integrated into a practical application. As such, Applicant's claims are not directed to the alleged abstract ideas themselves. Applicant respectfully requests that the Office withdraw the § 101 rejections of claims 1-12, 14, and 16-22 for at least this additional reason”
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Under Step 2A: Prong II, as previously discussed, Examiner respectfully notes that there is no improved technology in simply updating, storing, determining, approving, compiling, assigning, verifying, inputting, processing, providing, receiving, and outputting data (i.e., loan data, loan approval values, user information, loan requirement information, customer data, etc.). The disclosed invention simply cannot be equated to improvement to technological practices or computers. There is no technical improvement at all. Instead, Applicant recites “computer system configured to continuously update loan data stored in a blockchain, the computer system comprising: a processor; and memory storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the computer system to: determine a loan approval value based on first information associated with a customer; create a first block including a first set of transactions storing the first information and the loan approval value; cryptographically link the first block to the blockchain, comprising: determining a first set of hash values associated with the first set of transactions; determining a first combined hash value based at least in part on the first set of hash values associated with the first set of transactions; using the first combined hash value to cryptographically link the first block to a previous block of the blockchain; verify that second information associated with the customer satisfies a loan requirement, the loan requirement comprising at least one of an account balance requirement or a proof of employment status requirement; determine, based on verifying that the second information satisfies the loan requirement, an updated loan approval value; and create a second block including a second set of transactions storing the second information and the updated loan approval value; cryptographically link the first block to the blockchain, comprising: determining a second set of hash values associated with the second set of transactions; determining a second combined hash value based at least in part on the second set of hash values associated with the second set of transactions; and using the second combined hash value to cryptographically link the second block to the first block.” The recited features in the limitations do not result in computer functionality or technical improvement. Examiner respectfully notes that Applicant is simply using a computer to input, process, and output data. The recited features in the limitations does not disclose a technical solution to technical problem, but simply a business solution. Specifically, the recited steps, as amended, are merely managing/processing data (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)) and does not result in computer functionality or technical improvement. Thus, Applicant has simply provided a business method practice of processing data (loan data, loan approval values, user information, loan requirement information, customer data,), and no technical solution or improvement has been disclosed.
Furthermore, there is no technology/technical improvement as a result of implementing the abstract idea. The recited limitations in the pending claims simply amount to the abstract idea of processing and updating a loan approval value. There is no computer functionality improvement or technology improvement. The claim does not provide a technical solution to a technical problem. If there is an improvement, it is to the abstract idea and not to technology. Additionally, Examiner notes that it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the judicial exception itself (e.g., recited fundamental economic principle or practice and/or commercial interaction) is not an improvement in technology (See, MPEP 2106.05(a)(II)). Moreover, claims 1, 11, and 17, as amended, recites steps at a high level of generality. In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and outputting, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and output. See MPEP 2106.05. The claim simply makes use of a computer as a tool to apply the abstract idea without transforming the abstract idea into a patent eligible subject matter. Thus, the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application; and these arguments are not persuasive.
Furthermore, these steps, as amended, are recited as being performed by a computer system, blockchain, processor, memory, first block, a first set of hash values, first combined hash value, previous block, second block, second set of hash values, and second combined hash value. The additional elements: a computer system, blockchain, processor, memory, first block, a first set of hash values, first combined hash value, previous block, second block, second set of hash values, and second combined hash value, are used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of receiving, processing, and outputting data. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As previously discussed, the amended claim 11 recites a computer system, blockchain, processor, memory, first block, a first set of hash values, first combined hash value, previous block, second block, second set of hash values, and second combined hash value, which are simply used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong 1 discussion of the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Specifically, the recitation of “a computer system, blockchain, processor, memory, first block, a first set of hash values, first combined hash value, previous block, second block, second set of hash values, and second combined hash value” in the limitations merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. The claims, as amended, merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment; and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES). Hence, Claims 1, 11, and 17, as amended, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, these arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that independent claims 1, 11, and 17, as an ordered combination, are not well- understood, routine or conventional, and provide technical improvements to conventional loan processes that achieve faster and more secure loan transactions. For example, the present Application describes updating the loan approval amount for a customer once information associated therewith is received and verifies that the information meets qualifications for maintaining mortgage-ready status of the customer. …. Applicant respectfully submits that amended claims 1, 11, and 17 recite operations that go well beyond "simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements" generally. Accordingly, these elements are "additional elements" providing significant technical improvements under Prong Two of Step 2A……. Applicant's claims include an inventive concept… the claims recite elements, including elements associated with compiling information in a blockchain, that are not "well-known, routine, conventional activity" in the field…. Thus, Applicant respectfully submits that independent claims 1, 11, and 17, as amended herein, recites additional elements are not only applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. Accordingly, these additional elements provide significantly more than the alleged abstract idea alone, and thus demonstrate that Applicant's claims are patent-eligible. For at least the reasons discussed above, Applicant respectfully submits that independent claims 1, 11, and 17, as amended, include significantly more than the alleged abstract idea and thereby provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the Office withdraw the § 101 rejections of claims 1-12, 14, and 16-22 for at least this additional reason.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Under Step 2B, Examiner respectfully notes that all of Applicant's arguments have been reviewed, and the inventive concept cannot be furnished by a judicial exception. As previously discussed, Examiner respectfully notes that the improvements argued are to the abstract idea and not to technology. The technical limitations are simply utilized as a tool to implement the abstract idea without adding significantly more. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea, and hence these arguments are not persuasive. The presence of a computer does not make the claimed solution necessarily rooted in computer technology. Furthermore, Examiner notes that the courts have determined that processing data is well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of a computer when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). Thus, the recited combination of steps in claims 1, 11, and 17 operate in a well-understood, routine, conventional and generic way. As noted above, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of a computer system, blockchain, processor, memory, first block, a first set of hash values, first combined hash value, previous block, second block, second set of hash values, and second combined hash value are recited at a high level of generality in that it results in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements when considered separately and as an ordered combination do not amount to add significantly more as these limitations provide nothing more than to simply apply the exception in a generic computer environment.
Furthermore, applying the 2019 Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, and as explained with respect to Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional elements: a computer system, blockchain, processor, memory, first block, a first set of hash values, first combined hash value, previous block, second block, second set of hash values, and second combined hash value are at best mere instructions to “apply” the abstract idea, which cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As discussed in Step 2A, Prong 2 above, the claims’ limitations are recited at a high level of generality. These elements simply amount to receiving, processing, and outputting data and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). As discussed in Step 2A, Prong 2 above, the recitation of a computer/processor to perform recited limitations, as amended, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, which do not provide an inventive concept.
Hence, Examiner respectfully declines Applicant’s request to withdraw the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 1-7, 9-12, 14, and 16-23.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is the following:
Andres (U.S. Patent Application No. US 2006/0282356-A1) “System and method for structured put auction rate combination structure”
Moran (U.S. Patent Application No. US 2010/0042534-A1) “Method and apparatus for home buyers loan approval validation”
Banerjee (U.S. Patent Application No. US 2010/0106639-A1) “Apparatus and methods for facilitating real estate transactions”
Tealdi (U.S. Patent Application No. US 2012/0185375-A1) “Online mortgage approval and settlement system and method therefor”
Swierczek (U.S. Patent Application No. US 2015/0269666-A1) “Dynamic mortgage loan pre-approval system”
D’Souza (U.S. Patent Application No. US 2017/0076408-A1) “Connected Device-Based Property Evaluation”
Dowding (U.S. Patent Application No. US 2018/0253702-A1) “Blockchain solutions for financial services and other transactions-based industries”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED H MUSTAFA whose telephone number is (571)270-7978. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 - 5:00.
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, MICHAEL W. ANDERSON can be reached on (571) 270-0508. 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.
/MOHAMMED H MUSTAFA/Examiner, Art Unit 3693
/Mike Anderson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3693