DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 13, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is a regular application with a claim of priority to Provisional Application No. 63/510,417, filed June 27, 2023. Priority is provisionally granted subject to final claim scope.
This Application has been made “special” under the Track 1 filing program.
Response to Amendment
2. The RCE filed on November 5, 2025 with accompanying amendment (hereinafter “Amendment”) has been entered and carefully considered.
The Amendment was filed in response to the Final Rejection dated May 16, 2025.
In view of the Amendment, the Rejection under §103 is HEREBY WITHDRAWN.
However, the rejection under §101 is maintained, as explained below. An interview is encouraged to discuss this rejection.
For example, the interface features of Claim 4, together with greater specificity around the training features of the model, may present eligible subject matter.
The independent claims were amended in substantially identical/similar fashion, making it unnecessary to address each Claim. Thus, the below explanation of the Rejections of Claim 1 are explanatory of the Rejection as a whole.
With regard to the Amendment:
Claim 1 was amended as follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
706
722
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
616
708
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Broadest reasonable interpretation:
It seems evident that the claim is to be given its plain and ordinary meaning consistent with the specification. No special meaning for the claim terms is detected.
With regard to the §101 Rejection:
While Applicant has made a good faith effort to amend the Claim to recite eligible subject matter, it still lacks the specificity required under §101. For example, the new training step is confusing. It is unclear “how” the model is trained and whether the cluster groupings are the output or the input for the model. Furthermore, is “this user” identified by a cluster grouping? It is unclear how the allowance groupings are both the output and the data used to train the model. The Claim simply lacks the clarity required under §101. There is no clear technical solution to a technical problem.
As to the new Claims, they do not add the specificity required by §101. They each recite the same feature at a high level; namely, updating the training of the model with subsequent user performances. They are as follows:
PNG
media_image3.png
484
734
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Thus, the Rejection is maintained.
Possibly Eligible Subject Matter:
As noted above, the interface features of Claim 4, if incorporated into the independent Claim, may present eligible subject matter. However, greater specificity around the training features of Claim 1 is required.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant's arguments set forth in the Amendment have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to section 101 rejection, Applicant has not made any substantive arguments directed to eligibility. Applicant argues as follows:
PNG
media_image4.png
288
690
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, the Rejection is maintained as outlined above.
Conclusion
4. Applicant should carefully consider the following in connection with this Office Action:
A. Search and Prior Art
The search conducted in connection with this Office Action, as well as any previous Actions, encompassed the inventive concepts as defined in the Applicant’s specification. That is, the search(es) included concepts and features which are defined by the pending claims but also pertinent to significant although unclaimed subject matter. Accordingly, such search(es) were directed to the defined invention as well as the general state of the art, including references which are in the same field of endeavor as the present application as well as related fields (e.g. using machine learning in credit risk scenarios including secured credit card issuance). Indeed, there is a plethora of prior art in these fields.
Therefore, in addition to prior art references cited and applied in connection with this and any previous Office Actions, the following prior art is also made of record but not relied upon in the current rejection:
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2014/0310150 to Petty et al. This reference relates to the concept of a secured credit card.
U.S. Patent No. 8,392,331 to Ross et al. This reference relates to the concept of a hybrid secured and unsecured credit card.
B. Responding to this Office Action
In view of the foregoing explanation of the scope of searches conducted in connection with the examination of this application, in preparing any response to this Action, Applicant is encouraged to carefully review the entire disclosures of the above-cited, unapplied references, as well as any previously cited references. It is likely that one or more such references disclose or suggest features which Applicant may seek to claim. Moreover, for the same reasons, Applicant is encouraged to review the entire disclosures of the references applied in the foregoing rejections and not just the sections mentioned.
C. Interviews and Compact Prosecution
The Office strongly encourages interviews as an important aspect of compact prosecution. Statistics and studies have shown that prosecution can be greatly advanced by way of interviews. Indeed, in many instances, during the course of one or more interviews, the Examiner and Applicant may reach an agreement on eligible and allowable subject matter that is supported by the specification.
Interviews are especially welcomed by this examiner at any stage of the prosecution process. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool (e.g. WebEx). To facilitate the scheduling of an interview, the Examiner requests either a phone call at the number set forth below or the use of the AIR form as follows:
USPTO Automated Interview Request http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
Other forms of interview requests filed in this application may result in a delay in scheduling the interview because of the time required to appear on the Examiner's docket. Thus, a phone call or the use of the AIR form is strongly encouraged.
D. Communicating with the Office
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM BUNKER whose telephone number is (571)272-0017. The examiner can normally be reached on M - F 8:30AM - 5:30PM, ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abhishek Vyas, can be reached at 571-270-1836. Information regarding the status of an application, whether published or unpublished, may be obtained from the “Patent Center” system. For more information about the Patent Center system, see https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/
/William (Bill) Bunker/
U.S. Patent Examiner
AU 3691
(571) 272-0017 - office
william.bunker@uspto.gov
/ABHISHEK VYAS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3691