DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined un
der 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 4/28/26.
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 before the credit applicant information is encrypted; (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) decrypting, by the credit classification computer program, the plurality of encrypted credit classifications only after prediction processing is complete to form the plurality of credit classifications. (ix) aggregating, by the credit classification computer program, the plurality of credit classifications into a final credit classification; and (x) 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 mathematical equations, 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 encrypted credit classifications, wherein the plurality of machine learning models process the encrypted credit applicant information in encrypted form and provide an encrypted result using a homomorphic encryption technique, and wherein the homomorphic encryption technique allows computations and analytics to be performed on encrypted data nothing in the claim precludes the steps from being directed to mathematical equations, but for the recitation of generic computers. If a claim limitation under its BRI, covers mathematical equations but for the recitation of generic computer components, then the limitations fall within the “mathematical equations” grouping of abstract ideas. The claim also recites classifying a credit applicant into a credit classification, which is a commercial or legal interaction. 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”).
The abstract idea 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 encrypted credit classifications, wherein the plurality of machine learning models process the encrypted credit applicant information in encrypted form and provide an encrypted result using a homomorphic encryption technique, and wherein the homomorphic encryption technique allows computations and analytics to be performed on encrypted data. 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 encrypted credit classifications, wherein the plurality of machine learning models process the encrypted credit applicant information in encrypted form and provide an encrypted result using a homomorphic encryption technique, and wherein the homomorphic encryption technique allows computations and analytics to be performed on encrypted data.
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 encrypted credit classifications, wherein the plurality of machine learning models process the encrypted credit applicant information in encrypted form and provide an encrypted result using a homomorphic encryption technique, and wherein the homomorphic encryption technique allows computations and analytics to be performed on encrypted data are recited at a high-level or generality (i.e. as a generic computer performing generic computer functions) such that, they amount to no more than instructions to implement the abstract idea with a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(h). Accordingly these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do 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 encrypted credit classifications, wherein the plurality of machine learning models process the encrypted credit applicant information in encrypted form and provide an encrypted result using a homomorphic encryption technique, and wherein the homomorphic encryption technique allows computations and analytics to be performed on encrypted data, 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 before the credit applicant information is encrypted; 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, decrypting, by the credit classification computer program, the plurality of encrypted credit classifications only after prediction processing is complete to form the plurality of credit classifications. 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, amount 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 explain 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 following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, 11-13, 15-16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the plurality of credit classifications" at page 3, line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2 and 4-6 depend from claim 1 and are rejected for this reason.
Claim 8 recites the limitations “the credit applicant information” (page 5, line 2) and “the plurality of credit classifications” (page 5, last line). There is insufficient antecedent basis for each of these limitations in the claim. Claims 9 and 11-13 depend from claim 8 and are rejected for this reason.
Claim 15 recites the limitations “the credit applicant information” (page 7, lines 9-10), “the credit classification computer program” (page 7, line 16), “the plurality of credit classifications” (page 8, lines 4-5) and “the data components” (page 8, line 5). There is insufficient antecedent basis for each of these limitations in the claim. Claims 16 and 18-19 depend from claim 15 and are rejected for this reason.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/13/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
35 USC § 101
The Applicant states “The claim therefore recites a specific technical manner of handling and processing sensitive data, not merely the abstract result of classifying creditworthiness.” (page 11). The Examiner disagrees with the sentence because the claims are an improvement of the abstract idea only, not a technical improvement. 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 any alleged abstract idea into a practical application” (page 12) and that the “limitations impose a meaningful technical structure on the claimed process and are not merely incidental data gathering or extra-solution activity” (page 13). The claims do not provide an improvement over prior systems and only add details to the mathematical equations abstract idea. The claims do not address a problem particular to the Internet and merely apply the abstract idea on a general computer. The amended claims make the abstract idea more specific, and using mathematical equations to determine a credit score 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.
Conclusion
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