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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-20) in the reply filed on 01/05/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter (a judicial exception without significantly more). Claims are eligible for patent protection under § 101 if they are in one of the four statutory categories and not directed to a judicial exception to patentability. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). Claims 1-20, each considered as a whole and as an ordered combination, are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites a system. Claim 11 recites a method.
Step 2A, prong 1: Claim 11 recites the abstract idea of conducting auctions. This idea is described by the following steps:
analyzing financial data;
determining a bidding approval amount;
matching the financial data and personal data with a service provider;
placing a first bid from a buyer;
analyzing a first financial decision of the first bid;
placing a second bid from a lender; and
analyzing a second financial decision of the second bid.
Claim 1 recites equivalent limitations.
The above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II), in that they recite conducting auctions, i.e., commercial interactions.
Step 2A, prong 2: Claims 1 and 11 recite additional elements that fail to integrate the abstract idea into practical application.
Claims 1 and 11 recite a processor, modules including an AI financial analysis module. However, these elements are generic computing components (see at least paragraphs 058) that are simply used to perform operations that would otherwise be abstract (see MPEP2106.05(f)).
They are not "additional elements" to be analyzed under this part of the framework, and merely serve to add a general link to a technological environment in which the abstract idea/commercial interaction is carried out, and instructions to apply (execute) it. The additional elements do not amount to significantly more for the same reasons they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (i.e., that they merely provide a general link to a particular technological environment and instructions to "apply it").
Step 2B: Claims 1 and 11 fail to recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept.
For the reasons identified with respect to Step 2A, prong 2, claims 1 and 11 fail to recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept. For example, use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Dependent Claims Step 2A:
The limitations of the dependent claims merely set forth further refinements of the abstract idea identified at step 2A—Prong One, without changing the analysis already presented. Additionally, for the same reasons as above, the limitations fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea as the independent claims identified at step 2A—Prong Two.
Dependent Claims Step 2B:
The dependent claims merely use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea. These do not amount to significantly more for the same reasons they fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Moreover, the Specification also indicates this is the routine use of known components for the same reasons presented with respect to the elements in the independent claims above.
Thus, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed invention as a whole, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 8-12, 18, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DiCarlo et al. (US 20150066740).
Claim 11. DiCarlo et al. (DiCarlo) teaches a computer implemented method for execution of a direct-to-consumer system for commerce, the method comprising:
analyzing, by at least one processor, financial data [0039], [0042];
determining, by the at least one processor, a bidding approval amount [0039];
placing a first bid from a buyer [0047];
analyzing, by the at least one processor, a first financial decision of the first bid [0042], [0047];
placing a second bid from a lender [0094]; and
analyzing, by the at least one processor, a second financial decision of the second bid [0090].
DiCarlo teaches that the borrower's full application may then be supplemented with third party data (i.e., third party provided credit scores, debt, and income information) to add useful qualification data and to verify and validate the information provided by the borrower. The debt marketplace then performs a series of tests and analysis to create a "Complete Borrower Profile" for the borrower, which contains specific detailed information that is typically provided when a borrower is finalizing and closing a lending transaction [0071]. However, DiCarlo does not explicitly teach matching, by the at least one processor, the financial data and personal data with a service provider.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include matching, by the at least one processor, the financial data and personal data with a service provider, in the system of DiCarlo, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Claim 12. DiCarlo teaches said method further comprising: including an application programming interface configured to allow at least one third-party system to analyze the financial data and determine the bidding approval amount [0071].
Claim 18. DiCarlo teaches said method, wherein an amount of the first bid is no more than the bidding approval amount [0056].
Claim 19. DiCarlo teaches said method, further comprises selecting the bid from the lender [0056].
Claim 20. DiCarlo teaches said method, further comprising: training an AI optimal matching machine learning model on: at least one match output by the AI optimal matching machine learning model; evaluation metrics; effectiveness information; and associated value [0071].
System claims 1, 2, 8-10 repeat the subject matter of method claims 11, 12, 18, 19 and 20 respectively, as a set of apparatus elements rather than a series of steps. As the underlying processes of claims 11, 12, 18, 19 and 20 have been shown to be fully disclosed by the teachings of DiCarlo in the above rejections of claims 11, 12, 18, 19 and 20, it is readily apparent that the system disclosed by DiCarlo includes the apparatus to perform these functions. As such, these limitations are rejected for the same reasons given above for method claims 11, 12, 18, 19 and 20, and incorporated herein.
Claims 3-6 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DiCarlo in view of Wong (US 20200294130).
Claim 13. DiCarlo teaches all the limitations of claim 13 except using an AI optimal matching machine learning model.
Wong teaches a computer-implemented method of loan matching. After all the loan application information and documents are ready for further processing, an “artificial intelligence loan matching unit” retrieves information from the “loan application information database” and a “lender information database”. Then, the artificial intelligence loan matching unit generates or selects a list of lenders/accommodators that best match the needs of the borrowers [0042].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify DiCarlo to include using an AI optimal matching machine learning model, as disclosed in Wong, because it would advantageously match appropriate debtors/accommodators with appropriate lenders/loan financial institutions; and/or, enable appropriate lenders/loan financial institutions to carry out real-time bidding, as taught by Wong [0014].
Claim 14. DiCarlo teaches said method further comprising storing an output of the optimal matching machine learning model in an optimal matching history database [0035].
Claim 15. DiCarlo teaches said method, wherein an output of the matching is at least one match [0084], [0085].
Claim 16. DiCarlo teaches said method, further comprising displaying the at least one match through a user interface [0085].
System claims 3-6 repeat the subject matter of method claims 13-16 respectively, as a set of apparatus elements rather than a series of steps. As the underlying processes of claims 13-16 have been shown to be fully disclosed by the teachings of DiCarlo and Wong in the above rejections of claims 13-16, it is readily apparent that the system disclosed by DiCarlo and Wong includes the apparatus to perform these functions. As such, these limitations are rejected for the same reasons given above for method claims 13-16, and incorporated herein.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of DiCarlo and Wong, as applied to claims 5 and 15, in view of Lenti (US 20090292547).
Claim 17. DiCarlo teaches all the limitations of claim 17 except displaying matches in a side-by-side comparison through a user interface.
Lenti teaches a computer-implemented method for providing an auction trading interface wherein bids and offers are displayed in two lines side by side, with the corresponding bid and offer prices aligned [0011].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of DiCarlo and Wong to include displaying matches in a side-by-side comparison through a user interface, as suggested by Lenti, because it would advantageously allow the trader instantly get a view of the current market, whereby decisions can be made more quickly, as taught by Lenti [0011].
System claim 7 repeats the subject matter of method claim 17, as a set of apparatus elements rather than a series of steps. As the underlying processes of claims 17 have been shown to be fully disclosed by the teachings of DiCarlo, Wong and Lenti in the above rejections of claim 17, it is readily apparent that the system disclosed by DiCarlo, Wong and Lenti includes the apparatus to perform these functions. As such, these limitations are rejected for the same reasons given above for method claim 17, and incorporated herein.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 8433650 to Thomas discloses a simplified process for a home buyer to search for a home and simultaneously receive accurate and competitive bids for mortgages and services from multiple lenders and service providers. The process includes an automated underwriting process which generates complete, accurate information on the costs of buying and owning a home at very beginning of the home buying process.
US 20240394789 to Doane et al. discloses a reverse auction. Before setting up the details of the reverse auction, the buyer will be subject to account verification, which may include background check, credit history check, review of auction history, reference check, double confirmation that he/she can and will make proper payment upon receipt of the goods/services desired, etc. After verification by the system is complete, the buyer may post a reverse auction request. When beginning the process of setting up a reverse auction, the buyer may be prompted to input a description/introduction of the auction subject with a written description, photos, videos, etc., explaining the (good(s) and/or service(s) sought), the desired time frame for the reverse auction (e.g., from start to end), whether there are any pre-approved bidders.
US 20210110466 to Zhukov et al. discloses a system and method of matching reverse auction buyer bids to seller offers. Potential buyers may be encouraged to apply for loan pre-approval in order to secure the required financing from their preferred lenders prior to submitting their bid, since all successful bids are final and the service and reservation fee may be instantly charged once a match is made, and may be non-refundable even in cases where buyers fail to obtain the required financing due to their own financial circumstances or changing market conditions.
US 20230385930 to Rasori discloses a mortgage trading system and method. The system permits a lender to simultaneously negotiate transactions with multiple investors and/or broker-dealer. The system for obtaining, storing, organizing, auctioning, providing data and information, and for calculating pricing and exchanging data and information, and for the assignments of trades and/or purchase and sale commitments of securities.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MILA AIRAPETIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3202. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am-6:00 pm.
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, Jeffrey A. Smith can be reached at (571) 272-6763. 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.
/MILA AIRAPETIAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights