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
The following is Office Action on the merits in response to the communication received on 12/30/25.
Claim status:
Amended claims: 1, 8, and 15
Canceled claims: 5, 7, 10, 14, 17, and 20
Added New claims: None
Pending claims: 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, 11-13, 15-16, and 18-19
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 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, 11-13, 15-16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to statutory subject matter. Specifically, the invention of claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, 11-13, 15-16, and 18-19 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claims 1, 8 and 15 are directed to a method (claim 1), a system (claim 8) and a non-transitory computer readable storage medium (claim 15). Therefore on its face, each of claims 1, 8 and 15 is directed to a statutory category of invention under Step 1 of the 2019 PEG. However each of claims 1, 8 and 15 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, under Step 2A (Prong One and Prong Two) and Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, which is a judicial exception to 35 U.S.C. 101, as detailed below. Using the language of independent claim 1 to illustrate the claim recites the limitations of, (i) ingesting, by a credit classification computer program, historical data for prior credit applications, wherein the historical data comprises one or more of: customer deposits, investments, auto loans, types of vehicles financed, home data, and mortgage amounts; (ii) anonymizing, by the credit classification computer program, the historical data; (iii) separating, by the credit classification computer program, the historical data into a plurality of categories; (iv) encrypting, by the credit classification computer program, the historical data in each category using homomorphic encryption; (v) receiving, by the credit classification computer program and from a credit applicant computer program, credit applicant information; (vi) separating, by the credit classification computer program, the credit applicant information into the plurality of categories; (vii) encrypting, by the credit classification computer program, the credit applicant information in each category using homomorphic encryption, (viii) aggregating, by the credit classification computer program, the plurality of credit classifications into a final credit classification; and (ix) outputting, by the credit classification computer program, the final credit classification to a downstream system, wherein the downstream system is configured to execute an action in response to the final credit classification under the broadest reasonable interpretation covers methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices - mitigating risk, but for the recitation of generic computers but for the recitation of generic computers and generic computer components. (Independent claims 8 and 15 recite similar limitations and the analysis is the same).
That is, other than reciting an electronic device, training, by the credit classification computer program, a machine learning model for each category with the encrypted historical data for that category to form a plurality of machine learning models for each category, and predicting, by the credit classification computer program and using the plurality of machine learning models for each category, a credit classification using the encrypted credit applicant information for that category to form a plurality of credit classifications nothing in the claim precludes the steps from being directed to methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices - mitigating risk, but for the recitation of generic computers. If a claim limitation under its BRI, covers methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, then the limitations fall within the “methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Therefore, claim 1 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One of the Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance 84 Fed.Reg 50 (“2019 PEG”).
This “methods of organizing human activity” is not integrated into a practical application under Step 2A prong Two of the 2019 PEG. In particular claim 1 recites the following additional element of, an electronic device, training, by the credit classification computer program, a machine learning model for each category with the encrypted historical data for that category to form a plurality of machine learning models for each category, and predicting, by the credit classification computer program and using the plurality of machine learning models for each category, a credit classification using the encrypted credit applicant information for that category to form a plurality of credit classifications. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional element – an electronic device, training, by the credit classification computer program, a machine learning model for each category with the encrypted historical data for that category to form a plurality of machine learning models for each category, and predicting, by the credit classification computer program and using the plurality of machine learning models for each category, a credit classification using the encrypted credit applicant information for that category to form a plurality of credit classifications.
The electronic device, training, by the credit classification computer program, a machine learning model for each category with the encrypted historical data for that category to form a plurality of machine learning models for each category, and predicting, by the credit classification computer program and using the plurality of machine learning models for each category, a credit classification using the encrypted credit applicant information for that category to form a plurality of credit classifications are recited at a high-level or generality (i.e. as a generic computer performing generic computer functions) such that, it amounts to no more than an instruction to implement the abstract idea with a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(h). Accordingly this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B of the 2019 PEG independent claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using an electronic device, training, by the credit classification computer program, a machine learning model for each category with the encrypted historical data for that category to form a plurality of machine learning models for each category, and predicting, by the credit classification computer program and using the plurality of machine learning models for each category, a credit classification using the encrypted credit applicant information for that category to form a plurality of credit classifications, ingesting, by a credit classification computer program, historical data for prior credit applications, wherein the historical data comprises one or more of: customer deposits, investments, auto loans, types of vehicles financed, home data, and mortgage amounts; anonymizing, by the credit classification computer program, the historical data; separating, by the credit classification computer program, the historical data into a plurality of categories; encrypting, by the credit classification computer program, the historical data in each category using homomorphic encryption; receiving, by the credit classification computer program and from a credit applicant computer program, credit applicant information; separating, by the credit classification computer program, the credit applicant information into the plurality of categories; encrypting, by the credit classification computer program, the credit applicant information in each category using homomorphic encryption, aggregating, by the credit classification computer program, the plurality of credit classifications into a final credit classification; and outputting, by the credit classification computer program, the final credit classification to a downstream system, wherein the downstream system is configured to execute an action in response to the final credit classification, amounts to instructions to implement the abstract idea with a computer. The claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims have been given the full two part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations individually. The Dependent claim(s) when analyzed individually are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitation(s) fail to establish that the claim(s) are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 2, 4-6, 9, 11-13, 16 and 18-19 merely further explains the abstract idea.
When viewed individually the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, 11-13, 15-16, and 18-19 are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The Applicant’s arguments and amendments overcome the 112 Rejections, therefore, the Rejection(s) are moot.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The Applicant’s arguments and amendments overcome the 103 Rejections, therefore, the Rejection(s) are moot.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/30/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
35 USC § 101
The Applicant states “The amended claim recites processing encrypted information in a specific technical way that is not an abstract idea.” (page 10). The Examiner disagrees with the sentence because the claims are an improvement of the abstract idea only. It is a business solution to a business problem of credit classification. The applicant has not shown how the claims improve a computer or other technology, invoke a particular machine, transform matter, or provide more than a general link between the abstraction and the technology, MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) & (e). The Examiner disagrees that “the amended claim integrates the concept into a practical application” (page 10). The claims do not provide an improvement over prior systems and only add details (i.e., a specific type of encrypted data used with the model) to the abstract idea, they do not address a problem particular to the Internet and merely applies the abstract idea on a general computer. The amended claims make the abstract idea more specific, and credit classification is not an unconventional activity. Applicant’s remarks about why these limitations provide a practical application fail to surface any technical improvement identified in the spec, therefore this is not an inventive concept and significantly more.
35 USC § 112
The Applicant’s arguments and amendments overcome the 112 Rejections, therefore, the Rejection(s) are moot.
35 USC § 103
The Applicant’s arguments and amendments overcome the 103 Rejections, therefore, the Rejection(s) are moot.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MARLA HUDSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1063. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 a.m. - 5:30 p.m. ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bennett Sigmond can be reached at (303) 297-4411. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/M.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3694
/BENNETT M SIGMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3694
Prosecution Insights