DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . The following is in response to a Request for Continued Examination dated May 5, 2026 Claims 10-20 are canceled. Claim 4 is amended. Claims 32-34 are newly added. Claims 1-9 and 21-34 are pending. All pending claims are examined.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114
Response to Arguments
101 Rejection Analysis
101 Analysis
In line with the "2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance," which explains how we must analyze patent-eligibility questions under the judicial exception to 35 U.S.C. § 101. 84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 ("Revised Guidance"), the first step of Alice (i.e., Office Step 2A) consists of two prongs. In Prong One, we must determine whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e., an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon. 84 Fed. Reg. at 54 (Section III.A. I.). If it does not, the claim is patent eligible. Id.
An abstract idea must fall within one of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas in the Revised Guidance or be a "tentative abstract idea, "with the latter situation predicted to be rare. Id. at 51-52 (Section I, enumerating three groupings of abstract ideas), 54 (Section III.A. I., describing Step 2A Prong One), 56-57 (Section III.D., explaining the identification of claims directed to a tentative abstract idea).
If a claim does recite a judicial exception, the next is Step 2A Prong Two, in which we must determine if the "claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception." Id. at 54 (Section II.A.2.) If it does, the claim is patent eligible. Id.
If a claim recites a judicial exception but fails to integrate it into a practical application, we move to the second step of Alice (i.e., Office Step 2B). to evaluate the additional limitations of the claim, both individually and as an ordered combination, to determine whether they provide an inventive concept. Id. at 56 (Section III.B.). In particular, we look to whether the claim:
• Adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
• simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
The analysis in line with current 101 guidelines. Even if the abstract idea is deemed to be novel, the abstract idea is no less abstract (see Flook- new mathematical formula was an abstract idea).
“ In accordance with judicial precedent and in an effort to improve consistency and predictability, the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance extracts and synthesizes key concepts identified by the courts as abstract ideas to explain that the abstract idea exception includes the following groupings of subject matter, when recited as such in a claim limitation(s) (that is, when recited on their own or per se):
(b) Certain methods of organizing human activity—fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)1 – See Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 4 / Monday, January 7, 2019 / p.52.
Step 1: The claims are directed to one or more of the following statutory categories: a process, a machine, a manufacture, and a composition of matter.
claim 31 which is illustrative of independent claims 1 and 30 recites
“31. A method comprising:
receiving, by at least one processor and from a financial clearing platform, external credit line data in real-time;
receiving, by the at least one processor and from a first data storage, bank systems data;
receiving, by the at least one processor and from a second data storage, legacy decisioning platform data;
providing, by the at least one processor, the external credit line data, the bank systems data, and the legacy decisioning platform data as inputs to a data orchestrator;
generating, by the at least one processor and using the data orchestrator, merged data including the external credit line data, the bank systems data, and the legacy decisioning platform data;
generating, by the at least one processor and based on the merged data, one or more records;
consolidating, by the at least one processor and using the data orchestrator, the one or more records into one or more micro batches; and
transmitting, by the at least one processor and using a real-time data streaming platform, the one or more micro batches to a credit line decisioning system.”
2A, Prong One, It is a certain method of organizing human activity that is a form of a fundamental economic principles or practices (including mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations).
Evaluating different data points including external, internal and older decisioning history to determine a credit line performance metric of a user are nothing more than gathering data and applying a set of instructions to the data. Although claim 4 recites what the data orchestrator is, the limitations of the invention as claimed describe steps a person would take using a streamlined approach to make a decision related to risk or and opportunity tied to a credit line based on received data analyzed. (See App. Spec. paras. 0004-0009; 0015; Figs. 3-5)
Beyond the abstract idea, the additional elements recite hardware components such as processor (see App. Spec. para. 0099 - These computer readable program instructions may be provided to a processor of a general purpose computer, special purpose computer, or other programmable data processing apparatus to produce a machine, such that the instructions, which execute via the processor of the computer or other programmable data processing apparatus, create means for implementing the functions/acts specified in the flowchart and/or block diagram block or blocks), there does not appear to be any technology being improved.
Moreover, the data orchestrator serves as a channel for receiving and transmitting data received (see para. 0030 - “Data orchestrator 33 may consolidate credit line data received from source applications into one or more micro batches and transmit the one or more micro batches to a credit line decisioning system. In some embodiments, data orchestrator 33 consolidates credit line data from up to a maximum number of credit accounts into a single micro batch and transmits consolidated micro batches at a set interval of time. In some embodiments, if credit line data for the maximum number of credit accounts is not reached by the expiration of the set interval of time, the credit line data that has been received is consolidated into a micro batch and transmitted. In some embodiments, the maximum number of credit accounts for which credit line data is consolidated into a single batch is 30 credit accounts, and the set interval is 5 seconds. At this point, records may include calculated behavior scores for each account, consolidated account records, and customer attributes required for line management decisions. In some embodiments, the data orchestrator may comprise a data workflow. The data workflow may represent a predefined sequence of tasks, operations, and decisions that need to be executed to process and transform data from its raw form to a consumable state. It may, for instance, define the steps involved in data ingestion, cleansing, transformation, enrichment, and delivery’).
The claimed process of using the orchestrator to consolidate and create the micro batches are similar to how a human might process data, as there is not technical detail provided. The specification does not explain HOW this consolidation process by the orchestrator is an improvement to technology. Applicant assertion that the data orchestrator by creating micro batches reduces latency and improvise system performance is conclusory. However, absent is any disclosed support for HOW this approach to consolidating data and generating smaller or compact or micro batches of data is a technical improvement.
MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) states:
The courts have not provided an explicit test for this consideration, but have instead illustrated how it is evaluated in numerous decisions. These decisions, and a detailed explanation of how examiners should evaluate this consideration are provided in MPEP § 2106.05(a). In short, first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. The claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification (e.g., “thereby increasing the bandwidth of the channel”).
These are described at a high level of generality where each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. Absent is any support in the specification that the claims as recited require specialized computer hardware or other inventive computer components.
If this is where a predictive algorithm is used in evaluating the streamed credit line data, it suggests a bare assertion of an improvement. However, the necessary detail on how the algorithm is executed has to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Absent is support (explanation) for how the identified improvement to machine learning technology is executed. As recited it suggests a process similar to a feedback loop in which feedback is used to update the data fed the model.
Unlike, McRO, the present claims contain improvements to the context in which the evaluation is made and not one of a technology or technological field. In particular, there is a lack of improvement to a computer or technical field of feedback algorithms based on analysis of the historical data of a user’s activity because the data processing performed merely uses a system as a tool to perform an abstract idea- see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea. The invention as claimed recites a generic computer component and the claim does not pass step 2A, Prong Two.
The innovation as claimed appears to be directed to the user’s objective of processing this in micro batches instead of in large batch processing of the pooled data, rather than the integration of a practical application.
Step 2B; The next step is to identify any additional limitations beyond the judicial exception. The additional elements include processors (see App. Spec. para. 0030, Figs. 3-6) which is disclosed in the specification at a high degree of generality. Absent is any genuine issue of material fact that this component requires any specialized hardware or inventive computer component.
Likewise, the dependent claims 2-9 and 21-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. For example, claims 21-25 provide descriptive material of the rules, conditions or components that are used as part of the determination of credit decision or credit performance metric. These claim limitations recite steps at a high level of generality and performed in a traditional manner and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Independent claims 1, 30 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 including dependent claims 2-9 and 21-29 which fall with claims 1, 30 and 31. Therefore, claims 1-9 and 21-31 are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
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 1-9 and 21-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
The claim recites abstract idea of organizing human activities. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Analysis
The claims are directed to one or more of the following statutory categories: a process, a machine, a manufacture, and a composition of matter.
Independent Claim 31, which is illustrative of the independent claim 1 and 30 recite:
31. A method comprising:
receiving, by at least one processor and from a financial clearing platform, external credit line data in real-time;
receiving, by the at least one processor and from a first data storage, bank systems data;
receiving, by the at least one processor and from a second data storage, legacy decisioning platform data;
providing, by the at least one processor, the external credit line data, the bank systems data, and the legacy decisioning platform data as inputs to a data orchestrator;
generating, by the at least one processor and using the data orchestrator, merged data including the external credit line data, the bank systems data, and the legacy decisioning platform data;
generating, by the at least one processor and based on the merged data, one or more records;
consolidating, by the at least one processor and using the data orchestrator, the one or more records into one or more micro batches; and
transmitting, by the at least one processor and using a real-time data streaming platform, the one or more micro batches to a credit line decisioning system.
.The invention as claimed recites an abstract idea of credit line decisioning based on predefined criteria, a method of organizing human activity, that is a fundamental economic practice of risk management whereby there is a determination is made in response to the transaction history or commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations).
Besides reciting the abstract idea, the remaining claim limitations recite generic computer components (e.g., computer processor - see App. specification, paras. 0033-0040; see also Fig. 3). This recited abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites generic computer components for tracking and receiving data.
The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components. 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. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does 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 - (e.g., computer) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of automating credit line management so it is responsive to changing customer risk, using generic computer components.
Further, the dependent claims 2-9 and 19-31 for example, recite additional descriptive details about the criteria or rules applied to the making the determination of adjusting the credit line limits. For example, claims 21-25 and claims 32-34 describe some attributes and additional steps and data points factored into processing the request, however the recited abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite generic computer components to evaluate the submitted credit line data points for evaluating changing customer risk based on predefined conditions.
The dependent claims provide additional descriptions of the components of the claimed invention in a manner that merely refines and further limits the abstract idea of independent claims 1, 30 and 31 do not add any feature that is an “inventive concept” which cures the deficiencies of the independent claims.
None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the dependent claims are patent-ineligible.
In conclusion, merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims 1-9 and 21-31 are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Listed on form PTO-892.
Wasser et. al. , USP No. 9830646, Credit Score Goals And Alerts Systems And Methods
Haggerty et al., US 20090248567, Consumer Behaviors At Lender Level
Mullen et al. U.S. 20030009402, Financial Management System, And Methods And Apparatus For Use Therein.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHIKA OJIAKU whose telephone number is (571)270-3608. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8.30 AM -5:00 PM EST.
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, Matthew Gart can be reached at 571 272-3955. 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.
/CHIKAODINAKA OJIAKU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3696
1 Interval Licensing, 896 F.3d at 1344–45 (concluding that ‘‘[s]tanding alone, the act of providing someone an additional set of information without disrupting the ongoing provision of an initial set of information is an abstract idea,’’ observing that the district court ‘‘pointed to the nontechnical human activity of passing a note to a person who is in the middle of a meeting or conversation as further illustrating the basic, longstanding practice that is the focus of the [patent ineligible] claimed invention.’’); Voter Verified, Inc. v. Election Systems & Software, LLC, 887 F.3d 1376, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (finding the concept of ‘‘voting, verifying the vote, and submitting the vote for tabulation,’’ a ‘‘fundamental activity’’ that humans have performed for hundreds of years, to be an abstract idea);
In re Smith, 815F.3d 816, 818 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (concluding that ‘‘[a]pplicants’ claims, directed to rules for conducting a wagering game’’ are abstract).
14 If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it is still in the mental processes category unless the claim cannot practically be performed in the mind. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir . 2016) (‘‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’’); Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d. 1314, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2016)(holding that computer-implemented method for ‘‘anonymous loan shopping’’ was an abstract idea because it could be ‘‘performed by humans without a computer’’); Versata Dev. Grp. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (‘‘Courts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind.’’); CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding that the incidental use of ‘‘computer’’ or ‘‘computer readable medium’’ does not make a claim otherwise directed to process that ‘‘can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper’’ patent eligible); id. at 1376 (distinguishing Research Corp. Techs. v. Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859 (Fed. Cir. 2010), and SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 601 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2010), as directed to inventions that ‘‘could not, as a practical matter, be performed entirely in a human’s mind’’). Likewise, performance of a claim limitation using generic computer components does not necessarily preclude the claim limitation from being in the mathematical concepts grouping, Benson, 409 U.S.at 67, or the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping, Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20 - – See Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 4 / Monday, January 7, 2019
Prosecution Insights