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 10/2/25.
Claim status:
Amended claims: 1, 5-6, 8-9, 12-13, 15, 17-18 and 20
Canceled claims: none
Added New claims: None
Pending claims: 1-20
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: --an-- should be inserted before “e-commerce portal” and after “via” in line 2, and the apostrophe in “a compliant financial institutions’ lending regulations” in lines 23-24 should be --a compliant financial institution’s lending regulations--. Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: --an-- should be inserted before “e-commerce portal” and after “via” in line 2, and the apostrophe in “a compliant financial institutions’ lending regulations” in lines 22-23 should be --a compliant financial institution’s lending regulations--. Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: --an-- should be inserted before “e-commerce portal” and after “via” in line 2, and the apostrophe in “a compliant financial institutions’ lending regulations” at page 8 lines 16-17 should be --a compliant financial institution’s lending regulations--. Appropriate correction is required.
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 not directed to statutory subject matter. Specifically, the invention of claims 1-20 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 are directed to a system (claims 1 and 15), and a method (claim 8). 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 3, 10, and 17 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) processing business to business lending opportunities, presented via e-commerce portal capable of communicating, (ii) a borrower portal connected to an API application configured to receive tickets submitted by a borrower, and whereby an admin review portal approves or declines loan requests from said borrower to a merchant such that the merchant is onboarded into a portal system for future tracking of transactions; a pay in 4 purchase plan option with embedded third-party protections against fraudulent attempts via authentication and validation of purchases for each installment, wherein authorization failures are documented for future investigation; cloud software tools in communication with capital and bank partnerships, (iii) storing computer-executable instructions, (iv) transmit a series of queries related to a creditworthiness of at least one business credit applicant; (v) build a system of risk screening, loan servicing and regulatory compliance via partnering with compliant financial institutions by cloud communication to enforce a compliant financial institutions' lending regulations by approving or denying borrower requests, informed with data obtained from external services including collaborative fraud screening, ID verification, and credit risk scores, (vi) securely receive responses; (vii) securely verify purchaser identity via biometric identification and geolocation; securely authenticate said borrower via a 6-digit confirmation code sent to a borrower's personal device to confirm the identity of said borrower and initiate a loan thereby completing an order, wherein completion of said order consists of a fulfillment of the requested purchase by said borrower from said merchant such that the purchase is completed on credit by the borrower, whereby credit is transferred once authentication of said borrower is complete via an input of said confirmation code (viii) securely transmit the responses in real time; (ix) determining a creditworthiness of the at least one business credit applicant via real-time proprietary scoring engine, wherein more credit can be extended based on historical and seasonal business data and wherein past lending decisions train said real-time proprietary scoring engine such that future lending decisions may be informed by acquired historical lending data, (x) securely receive a creditworthy rating; (xi) securely communicate a creditworthy rating; (xii) securely communicate the creditworthy rating under the broadest reasonable interpretation covers methods of organizing human activity: commercial or legal interactions such as legal obligations, 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 at least one third party applicant device, at least one third party lender device, the Internet, processor, an accessible memory unit, a user interface, an underwriting engine nothing in the claim precludes the steps from being directed to methods of organizing human activity: commercial or legal interactions, 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 elements of, at least one third party applicant device, at least one third party lender device, the Internet, processor, an accessible memory unit, a user interface, an underwriting engine. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional elements – at least one third party applicant device, at least one third party lender device, the Internet, processor, an accessible memory unit, a user interface, an underwriting engine.
The at least one third party applicant device, at least one third party lender device, the Internet, processor, accessible memory unit, user interface, underwriting engine 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 an instruction to apply 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 at least one third party applicant device, at least one third party lender device, the Internet, processor, an accessible memory unit, a user interface, an underwriting engine, processing business to business lending opportunities, presented via e-commerce portal capable of communicating, a borrower portal connected to an API application configured to receive tickets submitted by a borrower, and whereby an admin review portal approves or declines loan requests from said borrower to a merchant such that the merchant is onboarded into a portal system for future tracking of transactions; a pay in 4 purchase plan option with embedded third-party protections against fraudulent attempts via authentication and validation of purchases for each installment, wherein authorization failures are documented for future investigation; cloud software tools in communication with capital and bank partnerships, storing computer-executable instructions, transmit a series of queries related to a creditworthiness of at least one business credit applicant; build a system of risk screening, loan servicing and regulatory compliance via partnering with compliant financial institutions by cloud communication to enforce a compliant financial institutions' lending regulations by approving or denying borrower requests, informed with data obtained from external services including collaborative fraud screening, ID verification, and credit risk scores, securely receive responses; securely verify purchaser identity via biometric identification and geolocation; securely authenticate said borrower via a 6-digit confirmation code sent to a borrower's personal device to confirm the identity of said borrower and initiate a loan thereby completing an order, wherein completion of said order consists of a fulfillment of the requested purchase by said borrower from said merchant such that the purchase is completed on credit by the borrower, whereby credit is transferred once authentication of said borrower is complete via an input of said confirmation code securely transmit the responses in real time; determining a creditworthiness of the at least one business credit applicant via real-time proprietary scoring engine, wherein more credit can be extended based on historical and seasonal business data and wherein past lending decisions train said real-time proprietary scoring engine such that future lending decisions may be informed by acquired historical lending data, securely receive a creditworthy rating; securely communicate a creditworthy rating; securely communicate the creditworthy rating, amounts to an instruction to apply 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 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 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 1-20 are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “cloud software tools” in line 14. What are cloud software tools, this limitation is not described anywhere in the specification. Further Claim 1 recites the limitation “build a system of risk screening, loan servicing and regulatory compliance . . . . .” in lines 21-22. There is no algorithm or any other written description in the specification that supports anything this broad, therefore the Inventor has not shown possession of this claim limitation. Claims 2-7 are rejected based on their dependency on Claim 1.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “build a system of risk screening, loan servicing and regulatory compliance” in lines 20-21. There is no algorithm or any other written description in the specification that supports anything this broad, therefore the Inventor has not shown possession of this claim limitation. Claims 9-14 are rejected based on their dependency on Claim 8.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “cloud software tools” at page 8 line 8. What are cloud software tools, this limitation is not described anywhere in the specification. Further Claim 15 recites the limitation “build a system of risk screening, loan servicing and regulatory compliance . . . . .” at page 8 lines 14-15. There is no algorithm or any other written description in the specification that supports anything this broad, therefore the Inventor has not shown possession of this claim limitation. Claims 16-20 are rejected based on their dependency on Claim 15.
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 1-20 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 "whereby an admin review portal. . . . ." in line 8. This limitation is indefinite and unclear, how does it limit the configuration of the system. Further Claim 1 recites “computer-executable instructions, which when executed by the processor, cause the system to . . . . .” at lines 16-17 This limitation is indefinite and not affirmatively claimed to be part of the claimed system. Further Claim 1 recites the limitation “receive responses from at least one business credit applicant” at page 3 line 1. This limitation is indefinite because it is not known what the system is receiving responses to. Lastly Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein more credit can be extended” at page 3 line 15. This limitation is indefinite because it is not known what more credit refers to, more credit than what. Claims 2-7 are rejected based on their dependency on Claim 1. Claim 5 is further rejected because it recites the limitation “ERP” in line 3. This limitation is indefinite because the specification does not set forth the metes and bounds of this capitalized term. Claim 6 is further rejected because it recites the limitation “wherein an applicant leverages. . . . .” in lines 3-8. This limitation is indefinite because it is unclear how these operations limit the configuration or structure of the claimed system.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “securely receive responses from at least one business credit applicant” in line 26. This limitation is indefinite because it is not known what the system is receiving responses to. Further Claim 8 recites the limitation “wherein more credit can be extended” at page 6 lines 8-9. This limitation is indefinite because it is not known what more credit refers to, more credit than what. Claims 9-14 are rejected based on their dependency on Claim 8. Claim 12 is further rejected because it recites the limitation “ERP” in line 3. This limitation is indefinite because the specification does not set forth the metes and bounds of this capitalized term.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "whereby an admin review portal. . . . ." at page 8 line 2. This limitation is indefinite and unclear, how does it limit the configuration of the system. Further Claim 15 recites “computer-executable instructions, which when executed by the processor, cause the system to . . . . .” at page 8 lines 9-10. This limitation is indefinite and not affirmatively claimed to be part of the claimed system. Further Claim 15 recites the limitation “receive responses from at least one business credit applicant” at page 8 line 20. This limitation is indefinite because it is not known what the system is receiving responses to. Lastly Claim 15 recites the limitation “wherein more credit can be extended” at page 9 line 4. This limitation is indefinite because it is not known what more credit refers to, more credit than what. Claims 16-20 are rejected based on their dependency on Claim 15. Claim 17 is further rejected because it recites the limitation “ERP” in line 3. This limitation is indefinite because the specification does not set forth the metes and bounds of this capitalized term. Claim 18 is further rejected because it recites the limitation “wherein an applicant leverages. . . . .” in lines 3-8. This limitation is indefinite because it is unclear how these operations limit the configuration or structure of the claimed system.
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 10/2/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
35 USC § 101
The Applicant states that “the claims are not directed towards an abstract idea and therefore, are not directed towards a judicial exception” (page 18). 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 extending credit to a qualified and authenticated business borrower to make a purchase. 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 Invention is like example 19 (page 21). The claims do not provide an improvement over prior systems and only adds details 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 Examiner disagrees that the Invention is like example 42 (page 21). (page 24). The amended claims make the abstract idea more specific, and extending credit to qualified businesses in order to make a purchase is not an unconventional activity. This is not an inventive concept and significantly more.
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