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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The following Non-Final office action is in response to application filed on 07/31/2024.
Priority Date: Prov.(12/03/2021): CON of Abandoned>(#18/060,911[2022-12-01]).
Claim Status:
Pending claims : 1-20
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 directed to non-statutory subject matter.
In particular, claims are directed to a judicial exception (Abstract idea) without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, (Step-1) it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. (Step-2A) If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, (Step-2B) it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Examples of abstract ideas grouping include: (a) Mental processes; (b) Certain methods of organizing human activities [ i. Fundamental Economic Practice; ii. Commercial or Legal Interaction; iii. Managing Personal behavior or Relations between People]; and (c) Mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. (2014).
Analysis is based on the 2019 Revised Patent Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG)-(see MPEP § 2106.04(II) and 2106.04(d).
[Step-1] The claims are directed to a method/system/machine, which are a statutory category of invention.
Claim 1 (exemplary) recites a series of steps for Mortgage Loan Origination for Real Property.
[Step-2A]-Prong 1:The claim 1 is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception:
The claim recites the limitations of:
providing a Game Plan module, the Game Plan module including code fixed in a tangible medium, the game plan module including code for data fields, the data fields grouped according to a loan officer and packaging office;
scheduling activities related to the data fields, the Game Plan module including code for a scheduling system performing the scheduling;
presenting customized interfaces to the loan officer and the packaging manager according to the activities for collecting information in the data fields;
transforming the information in the data fields in order to prepare them for loan processing for a location of real property, upon advancement by the loan officer and the packaging manager; and
modifying the ability of the loan officer and the packaging manager to perform the advancement with a Rules Engine module.
The claimed method/system/machine simply describes series of steps for Mortgage Loan Origination for Real Property.
These limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations via human commercial or business or transactional activities/interactions, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting one or more servers/processors, devices and computer network nothing in the claim precludes the limitations from practically being performed by organizing human business activity. For example, without the structure elements language, the claim encompasses the activities that can be performed manually between the users and a third party. These limitations are directed to an abstract idea because they are business interaction/sale activity that falls within the enumerated group of “certain methods of organizing human activity” in the 2019 PEG.
[Step-2A]-Prong 2:
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if it is integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional limitation of using one or more servers/processors, devices and computer network to perform the steps. The processor in the steps is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing data. This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. 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 claim is directed to the abstract idea.
[Step-2B]
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas (whether claim provides inventive concept).
As discussed above, the recitation of the claimed limitations amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a processor (using the processor as a tool to implement the abstract idea). Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the processor at each step of the process performs purely generic computer functions. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. The same analysis applies here, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at or provide an inventive concept.
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea, and the claim is not patent eligible.
The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention including independent claims 10, and 20.
Furthermore, the dependent claims 2-9 and 11-19 do not resolve the issues raised in the independent claims.
The dependent claims 2-9 and 11-19 are directed towards:
Using [claims 2-9 and 11-19], the customized interfaces include an active loan interface and a prospective loan interface for the loan officer; an active loan interface and a prospective loan interface for the packaging manager; the Rules Engine module includes a pricing engine that defines the fee on services, include a lender fee and an appraisal fee; the Rules Engine module includes a calendar engine, which provides for needed response times for the collection of portions of the information; the Rules Engine module includes PPE rules (product pricing engine) and CERF rules (credit, employment, rules, funds) and the PPE rules include basis eligibility rules for the borrower and the CERF rules include credit check rules, employment verification rules, pricing rules, and funds verification; providing a global manager interface, the global manager interface providing a plurality of system views, include a loan officer view, a packaging manager view, a loan administrator view, and closer/funder view; and the plurality of system views is separately accessible by a corresponding user.
These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and are similarly rejected under same rationale.
Accordingly, the dependent claims 2-9 and 11-19 are rejected as ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. 101 based upon the same analysis.
The instant claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 in view of The Decision in Alice Corporation Ply. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. in a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court held that the patent claims in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. ("Alice Corp. ") are not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101
X does not explicitly disclose the step of ….
However, Y being in the same field of invention discloses the step of (Abst. fig. 1)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the features mentioned by X to include the disclosures as taught by Y to facilitate …
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horn et al (US 2004/0215,552 A1) in views of Greenberg et al (US 2021/0158438 A1), Lack et al. (US 2020/0380600 A1), and Flaxman et al (US 7,653,592 B1).
Ref claim 1, Horn discloses a method comprising:
providing a Game Plan module, the Game Plan module including code fixed in a tangible medium, the game plan module including code for data fields, the data fields grouped according to a loan officer and packaging office (para [0112], FIG. 2B; via the edit loan screen 220/all of the information for the loan/submitted in the loan application 600…);
scheduling activities related to the data fields, the Game Plan module including code for a scheduling system performing the scheduling (para [0224]; via the processing information screen 4000 permits/documents have been ordered, th ordered date, and the due date…[0225]; via Ordering a document…for a closing);
presenting customized interfaces to the loan officer and the packaging manager according to the activities for collecting information in the data fields (para [0140]; via the loan officer module 730/loan officers/track the progress of the loa application…[0141]; via the underwriter module 740/to approve loans, create and manage loan folder/administrator module 720/approve loans…);
transforming the information in the data fields in order to prepare them for loan processing for a location of real property, upon advancement by the loan officer and the packaging manager(para [0160]; via the processing information screen 1300 depicts the name and the home address of the loan applicant…[0250]; via the closing module permits/closing documents /transmitted to any third party, such as a loan applicant, realtor, or investor 1905…); and
modifying the ability of the loan officer and the packaging manager to perform the advancement with a Rules Engine module (para [0179]; via …Administrative rules and their creation by Ad module 750/from regulatory bodies [such as, Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac]……[0180]; via Ex. a user select an investor 1905 from list 1900 in FIG.19…).
Ref claims 2-3, Horn discloses the method of claim 1,
But Horn does not explicitly disclose the limitations of claims 2-3: wherein the customized interfaces include an active loan interface and a prospective loan interface for the loan officer, and wherein the customized interfaces include an active loan interface and a prospective loan interface for the packaging manager.
However, Greenberg being in the same field of invention discloses the step of: wherein the customized interfaces include an active loan interface and a prospective loan interface for the loan officer, and wherein the customized interfaces include an active loan interface and a prospective loan interface for the packaging manager (para [0043] discloses “FIG. 4A illustrates a lead list 409 that the loan officer 107 may view to initiate contact with various potential loan applicants. Furthermore, the lead list 409 may list various potential loan applicants that sent lead data (e.g., by filling out an online form that was sent to a webserver) requesting contact.” Paragraph [0047] discloses “FIG. 7 illustrates the computing device 110, corresponding to the transaction coordinator 109, rendering the workflow GUI 400 to depict the opportunities object indicium 403 indicating the current stage in the loan origination workflow pipeline 300 as being the opportunity object 303, illustrated in FIG. 3. …).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the features mentioned by Horn to include the disclosures as taught by Greenberg to facilitate customized loan interfaces for packaging manager.
Ref claim 4, Horn discloses the method of claim 3 [in view of Greenberg], and explicitly the limitation of: wherein the Rules Engine module includes a pricing engine that defines the fee on services (para [0253]; via the pricing module…[0257]; via A is the sum of company hard costs [such as credit report costs,…]…).
Ref claim 5, Horn discloses the method of claim 4, wherein the services include a lender fee and an appraisal fee (para [0253]; via the pricing module …[0260]; via D is the sum of loan level hard costs [such as appraisal costs,…]…).
Ref claim 6, Horn discloses the method of claim 5, wherein the Rules Engine module includes a calendar engine, which provides for needed response times for the collection of portions of the information (para [0223]; via the numerical entry 3925 in the past due column 3915 indicates…past the processing due date…[0224-0225]; via the processing information screen 4000 permits …ordering documents for closing).
Ref claim 7, Horn discloses the method of claim 6 [in view of Greenberg],
But Horn does not explicitly disclose the limitation of: wherein the Rules Engine module includes PPE rules (product pricing engine) and CERF rules (credit, employment, rules, funds) and the PPE rules include basis eligibility rules for the borrower and the CERF rules include credit check rules, employment verification rules, pricing rules, and funds verification.
However, Lack being in the same field of invention discloses the step of: wherein the Rules Engine module includes PPE rules (product pricing engine) and CERF rules (credit, employment, rules, funds) and the PPE rules include basis eligibility rules for the borrower and the CERF rules include credit check rules, employment verification rules, pricing rules, and funds verification (para [0031] discloses, “For example, a digital lending platform with integrated product, pricing, and eligibility. The digital lending platform includes, in some embodiments, one or more server hosts supporting an application stack of the digital lending platform. The application stack includes a loan-product database, a pricing algorithm, and an eligibility rules engine.” para [0075] discloses “The rules engine 2920 includes potential-borrower eligibility rules for each loan product of the loan products. The eligibility rules include rules for minimum credit scores, maximum loan amounts, maximum loan-to-value ratios for loan amounts to assets, or a combination thereof. In some embodiments, the eligibility rules also include rules for loan-level price
adjustments.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the features mentioned by Horn to include the disclosures as taught by Lack to facilitate PPE and CERF rules.
Ref claims 8-9, Horn discloses the method of claim 7 [in view of Lack],
But Horn does not explicitly disclose the limitations of: further comprising providing a global manager interface, the global manager interface providing a plurality of system views, include a loan officer view, a packaging manager view, a loan administrator view, and closer/funder view, and wherein each of the plurality of system views is separately accessible by a corresponding user.
However, Flaxman being in the same field of invention discloses the step of: further comprising providing a global manager interface, the global manager interface providing a plurality of system views, include a loan officer view, a packaging manager view, a loan administrator view, and closer/funder view, and wherein each of the plurality of system views is separately accessible by a corresponding user” (Column 5, [Line 9-25] discloses “User interfaces 22 may include different user interfaces for different types of users, such as a mortgage broker user interface for mortgage brokers, a loan officer user interface for loan officers, a loan processor user interface for loan processors, a settlement agent user interface for settlement agents, service provider user interfaces for service providers, an investor user interface for investors, and a consumer user interface for consumers. User interfaces 22 may be accessed by different users via computers 20 to perform viewing status, ordering services, viewing documents, providing data, processing documents, clearing a mortgage application for closing, preparing a mortgage for sale in the secondary market, delivering the mortgage application for sale in the secondary market, managing user-configurable business logic and preferences in system 10, and so on.” …).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the features mentioned by Horn to include the disclosures as taught by Flaxman to facilitate user interfaces for views.
Claim 10 recites similar limitations to claim 1 and thus rejected using the same art and rationale in the rejection of claim 1 as set forth above.
Claims 11-13 are rejected as per the reasons set forth in claims 4-6 respectively.
Claims 14-16 are rejected as per the reasons set forth in claims 7-9 respectively.
Claim 17 recites similar limitations to claim 1 and thus rejected using the same art and rationale in the rejection of claim 1 as set forth above.
Claims 18-20 are rejected as per the reasons set forth in claims 7-9 respectively.
CONCLUSION
The prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Greenland et al (US 2008/0162337 A1) discloses System and methods for trading complex financial products.
Ashton et al (US 2007/0097655 A1) discloses LOAN STATUS REPORTING SYSTEM AND METHOD.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HATEM M. ALI whose telephone number is (571) 270-3021, E-mail: Hatem.Ali@USPTO.Gov and FAX (571)270-4021. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, 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, ABHISHEK VYAS can be reached on (571) 270-1836. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HATEM M ALI/
Examiner, Art Unit 3691