Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/669,150

SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PRIVATE LOAN CREATION

Final Rejection §101§102§103
Filed
May 20, 2024
Examiner
EBERSMAN, BRUCE I
Art Unit
3693
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Wells Fargo Bank N A
OA Round
2 (Final)
64%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
4y 1m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 64% of resolved cases
64%
Career Allow Rate
354 granted / 553 resolved
+12.0% vs TC avg
Strong +58% interview lift
Without
With
+57.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 1m
Avg Prosecution
46 currently pending
Career history
599
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
26.4%
-13.6% vs TC avg
§103
46.5%
+6.5% vs TC avg
§102
8.1%
-31.9% vs TC avg
§112
13.5%
-26.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 553 resolved cases

Office Action

§101 §102 §103
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 . DETAILED ACTION Applicant filed an amendment on 1/26/26. Claims 1-20 are and remain pending. Claims 1, 2, 8, 10, 15, and 17 are amended. After careful consideration of applicant arguments and amendments, the examiner finds them to be moot and/or non-persuasive. This action is a Final Rejection. 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 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent claims, method, system and computer readable medium respectively, all statutory classes of invention, Claim 1 is the example claim. The claims under their broadest reasonable interpretation cover the performance of the limitation as certain methods or organizing human activity. In this case, carrying on a transaction on a computer which is a fundamental economic practice. Here the abstract elements include; receiving, via a …, information relating to a prospective transaction; maintaining, by the …, the … in an active mode based on a …; and of …. by resetting the system … at a predetermined time interval to prevent the .l.. from going into a sleep mode or powering off while maintaining, by the …, the … in the active mode, performing, by the … via the …, an electronic search for a sponsorship opportunity related to the prospective transaction; receiving, by the … via the …, a search result dataset; generating, by the …, a displayable result set based on the search result dataset, the displayable result set comprising at least one prospective sponsor; rendering, by the …, the displayable result set on a … of the …, wherein the at least one prospective sponsor is determined using … and is selectable by the user; and allowing, by the …, real-time user interaction with the…. Here the non-abstract elements include “computing device”, system, network, display, “idle timer” The dependent claims add the following technical elements, claim 2, 10, 17 (geolocation) . Here the use of a computer to generically interface with a customer is a fundamental economic practice. The recitation of generic computing elements does not necessarily preclude a claim from reciting an abstract idea. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular the claims recite the additional elements of “a computer”(see above) The computer hardware/software are recited as at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computing component. The additional elements when considered separately or as an ordered combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore claims x, y and z are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because when considered separately and as an ordered combination they do not add “inventive concept. The dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, 16-20 are rejected because they do not correct the concerns of claims 1, 8 and 15 claims 2, 10 and 17 may be helpful. It would desirable to show the connection to the computer resources or showing that there is an improvement in the computer. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Claims 1-20 are rejected in view of US Patent Publication to Kilchenko 20160313906 in view of US Patent Publication 20180284877 to Klein. As per claim 1, Kilchenko discloses; A method, comprising: receiving, via a computing device, information relating to a prospective transaction; K(0094, purchase a good while interacting) maintaining, by the computing device, the computing device in an active mode based on a system idle timer; K(0024, here it appears that the system may use an inactivity timer expiring to trigger a chat bot or other actions which will keep the system from going to sleep) of the computing device by resetting the … idle time at a predetermined time interval to prevent the computing device from going into sleep mode or powering off. K(0070, 0071, 0072, 1061 “agent is typing” and other features are used to effectively stop the system from sleeping, keep the attention of the user) and while maintaining, by the computing device, the computing device in the active mode, K(0024, the outcome of interaction by the system will be to maintain active mode) performing, by the computing device via the network, an electronic search for a sponsorship opportunity related to the prospective transaction; K(0092 search for advertisement from a database of advertisements) receiving, by the computing device via the network, a search result dataset; generating, by the computing device, a displayable result set based on the search result dataset, the displayable result set comprising at least one prospective sponsor; rendering, by the computing device, the displayable result set on a display of the computing device, (0081 advertising to internet searchers results) wherein the at least one prospective sponsor is determined using artificial intelligence and is selectable by the user; and allowing, by the computing device, real-time user interaction with the computing device. K(0094, uses AI, 0074, real time features 0055) Here Kilchenko uses the agent to keep the user session from going idle but uses what appear to be timers to determine if the user is idle. Klein however teaches the management of the system power to power the system on or maintain it in various power status states to conform to various anticipated needs of the user. This includes the teaching that a time interval exists for power saving or sleep type modes. (0073-4) It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the idle management of Kilchenko with the system management of Klein for the motivation of “ using common power management techniques” for the benefit of the user . (0002-3) Claims 8 and 15 are similar to claim 1. As per claims 2, 10 and 17 Kilchenko discloses; The method of claim 1, wherein The search result dataset is based on geolocation information of the computing device. (0156, geolocation Technology generally to determine the location of a user, see also 0130) As per claims 3, 11 Kilchenko discloses; he method of claim 1, wherein the sponsorship opportunity comprises a discounted resource. K(0079 discounts might be offered) As per claims 4, 12 and 18 Kilchenko discloses; The method of claim 1, wherein the sponsorship opportunity comprises at least one of a loan and a grant. K(0104 loan, not the choice of one) As per claims 5, 13 and 19 Kilchenko discloses; the method of claim 1, further comprising, responsive to a user selection of a particular sponsor, facilitating a financial transaction between the user and the particular sponsor. K(0028 complete a purchase… or a good or service) As per claims 6, 14 Kilchenko discloses; The method of claim 1, wherein the at least one prospective sponsor is ranked relative to other prospective sponsors. K(0083 ranked order of advertising) As per claims 7, 9 and 16 Kilchenko discloses; The method of claim 1, wherein the artificial intelligence is structured to analyze historical financial transactions to identify a spending pattern of a customer and use the spending pattern to predict the sponsorship opportunity or the at least one prospective sponsor. K(0086) Response to Arguments Applicant filed an amendment on 1/26/26. Claims 1-20 are and remain pending. Claims 1, 2, 8, 10, 15, and 17 are amended. After careful consideration of applicant arguments and amendments, the examiner finds them to be moot and/or non-persuasive. This action is a Final Rejection. Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. 101 – moot in view of amendment. Applicant has made progress but should highlight the improvement to the computer, ie saving computing power or something like that. Here arguments re: improvement of the computer should be highlighted in the context of an improvement in the operation of the computer. Applicant has made some progress but, it’s not clear that this is an improvement to the computer or to the abstract idea. Here in regards to practical application that is generally not a persuasive argument. However, likewise applicant does indicate that it might prevent interruption of a long running process so this might be a potential amendment for overcoming 35 USC 101. Claim Objections - moot Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. 112 -moot Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. 102 – moot generally in view of new grounds of rejection. Conclusion The following non-patent literature was identified by a search of IP.com Banking in cyberspace: an investment in itself, IEEE 1997 Acceptance Towards Digital Payments and Improvements in Cashless Payment Ecosystem, IEEE 2020 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 BRUCE I EBERSMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3442. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am - 5:00 pm Monday-Friday. 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 at 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. /BRUCE I EBERSMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 20, 2024
Application Filed
Oct 22, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §101, §102, §103
Dec 17, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Dec 17, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jan 26, 2026
Response Filed
Feb 26, 2026
Final Rejection — §101, §102, §103
Apr 10, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Apr 10, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12567064
AUTHORIZATION PREPROCESSING SYSTEMS AND METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12567108
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MATCHING TRADING ORDERS BASED ON PRIORITY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12505453
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MAKING PURCHASE PAYMENTS AFTER PAYMENT FAILURES
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 23, 2025
Patent 12493883
SYSTEMS FOR DETECTING BIOMETRIC RESPONSE TO ATTEMPTS AT COERCION
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 09, 2025
Patent 12488392
DATA PROCESSING METHOD, SYSTEM, AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER-READABLE MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 02, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
64%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+57.7%)
4y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 553 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month