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 11/28/25.
Claim status:
Amended claims: 1, 8, 15
Canceled claims: none
Added New claims: None
Pending claims: 1-20
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.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 recite the limitation “real-time proprietary scoring engine”. 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, claims 9-14 are rejected based on their dependency on Claim 8 and 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.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 recite the limitations “whereby an admin review portal approves or declines loan requests” and “a pay in 4 purchase plan option.” These limitations are indefinite. It is not clear how the admin review portal limits the structure or configuration of the claimed system or any of its components. And the specification does not define what a pay in 4 purchase plan option is. Therefore, these limitations are indefinite. Claims 2-7 are rejected based on their dependency on Claim 1, claims 9-14 are rejected based on their dependency on Claim 8 and claims 16-20 are rejected based on their dependency on Claim 15.
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 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) processing business-to-business lending opportunities, 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; and capable of storing computer-executable instructions, which when executed by said computer processor, causes the system to: (ii) securely redirect data input by at least one third-party applicant from a third-party web-portal corresponding with said at least one third-party applicant device, said user interface containing a plurality of user input data related to a creditworthiness of said at least one third-party applicant; (iii) securely receive responses from said at least one third-party applicant; (iv) securely transmit said responses to an underwriting engine in real time, said underwriting engine capable of assessing a degree of said creditworthiness relating to said at least one third-party 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 to thereby assignbiometric identification and geolocation: (ix) securely authenticate said borrower via a 6-digit confirmation code sent to confirm said borrower's identity and initiate a loan thereby completing an order, wherein completion of said order consists of a fulfillment of a requested purchase by said borrower from said merchant such that a 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: (x) securely partner 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; (xi) capture at a point-of-sale personal information pertaining to said at least one third-party applicant including applicant first name, applicant last name, applicant home address, applicant telephone number, and business information associated with said at least one third-party applicant including gross annual revenue; (xii) locate said at least one third-party applicant independently of said data input by said at least one third-party applicant wherein said locating requires existence of known borrower information available from publicly available data resources and wherein said locating independently verifies location data input by said at least one third-party applicant; wherein said known borrower information is collected is and then redirected to a virtual private cloud database associated with the system; (xiii) compare gross annual revenue data entered by said at least one third-party applicant with said known borrower information available from publicly available resources; (xiv)said at least one third-party applicant has been in business according to said publicly available business information, and wherein a business credit borrower physically authenticates agreement with business terms extended by said third-party lending device; and (xv) generate, a unique quick-response code that, when scanned, redirects said at least one third-party applicant's credit information under the broadest reasonable interpretation covers methods of organizing human activity: commercial interactions 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, computer processor, an accessible memory unit, a secure user interface, an underwriting engine, a borrower's personal device nothing in the claim precludes the steps from being directed to methods of organizing human activity: commercial 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, computer processor, an accessible memory unit, a secure user interface, an underwriting engine, a borrower's personal device, execute instructions for providing a plurality of recommended payment options, wherein said plurality of recommended payment options are determined by way of a machine learning algorithm capable of processing information from said at least one third-party applicant transmitted securely from a virtual private cloud space regarding previous payment choices and payment history. 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, computer processor, an accessible memory unit, a secure user interface, an underwriting engine, a borrower's personal device, execute instructions for providing a plurality of recommended payment options, wherein said plurality of recommended payment options are determined by way of a machine learning algorithm capable of processing information from said at least one third-party applicant transmitted securely from a virtual private cloud space regarding previous payment choices and payment history.
The at least one third party applicant device, at least one third party lender device, the Internet, computer processor, accessible memory unit, secure user interface, underwriting engine, borrower's personal device, execute instructions for providing a plurality of recommended payment options, wherein said plurality of recommended payment options are determined by way of a machine learning algorithm capable of processing information from said at least one third-party applicant transmitted securely from a virtual private cloud space regarding previous payment choices and payment history 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 generally linking the abstract idea to a computer network (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, computer processor, an accessible memory unit, a secure user interface, an underwriting engine, a borrower's personal device, execute instructions for providing a plurality of recommended payment options, wherein said plurality of recommended payment options are determined by way of a machine learning algorithm capable of processing information from said at least one third-party applicant transmitted securely from a virtual private cloud space regarding previous payment choices and payment history, processing business-to-business lending opportunities, 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; and capable of storing computer-executable instructions, which when executed by said computer processor, causes the system to: securely redirect data input by at least one third-party applicant from a third-party web-portal corresponding with said at least one third-party applicant device, said user interface containing a plurality of user input data related to a creditworthiness of said at least one third-party applicant; securely receive responses from said at least one third-party applicant; securely transmit said responses to an underwriting engine in real time, said underwriting engine capable of assessing a degree of said creditworthiness relating to said at least one third-party 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 to thereby assignfinancial 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; capture at a point-of-sale personal information pertaining to said at least one third-party applicant including applicant first name, applicant last name, applicant home address, applicant telephone number, and business information associated with said at least one third-party applicant including gross annual revenue; locate said at least one third-party applicant independently of said data input by said at least one third-party applicant wherein said locating requires existence of known borrower information available from publicly available data resources and wherein said locating independently verifies location data input by said at least one third-party applicant; wherein said known borrower information is collected is and then redirected to a virtual private cloud database associated with the system; compare gross annual revenue data entered by said at least one third-party applicant with said known borrower information available from publicly available resources; compare said at least one third-party applicant data input, by said at least one third-party applicants with publicly available business information including an amount of time said at least one third-party applicant has been in business according to said publicly available business information, and wherein a business credit borrower physically authenticates agreement with business terms extended by said third-party lending device; and generate, a unique quick-response code that, when scanned, redirects said at least one third-party applicant's credit information, amounts to generally linking the abstract idea to a computer network. 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/28/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
35 USC § 101
The Applicant states “that the claimed invention does not fall within any of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas and should not be treated as reciting abstract ideas.” (page 22). 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 making a microloan to a business based on creditworthiness. 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 24). 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 claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. (page 26). The amended claims make the abstract idea more specific, and making microloans to creditworthy businesses is not an unconventional activity. This is not an inventive concept and significantly more.
35 USC § 112(a) & (b)
The amended claim language is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) as indicated above in the Office action.
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