CTFR 18/909,650 CTFR 83995 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. This office action is in response to applicant's communication of December 23, 2025. The rejections are stated below. Claims 1-6, 8-15, and 17-20 are pending and have been examined. Response to Amendment/Arguments Applicant’s arguments concerning claims 1-6, 8-15, and 17-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been considered and are persuasive so therefore the rejection has been withdrawn. Applicant’s arguments concerning 35 U.S.C. 101 have been considered but are not persuasive. The claims recite a process for generating a consumer credit report file, analyzing the file for compliance with rules, modifying the file when non-compliant, and determining a score. This process falls within the category of fundamental economic practices and certain methods of organizing human activity. Specifically, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of verifying payment history data and ensuring compliance with reporting standards. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I) (listing "fundamental economic principles or practices" as abstract ideas). The steps of receiving data, converting it into a predefined format, analyzing the file, and modifying it when non-compliant are routine steps that can be performed manually or by a general-purpose computer. The claims do not recite any particular technological improvement or specific technical solution to a technical problem. Rather, they recite a generalized process for data formatting and verification that is squarely within the realm of abstract ideas. The additional elements recited in the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims merely recite generic computer components (a processor, a memory, a communication interface) performing routine data processing steps. The specification admits that large financial institutions already provide consumer information to credit reporting agencies (0002-0003). The claimed steps of converting data into a predefined format, applying validation rules, and modifying data are conventional activities in the field of credit reporting. See MPEP § 2106.05(d). Applicant argues that the amendments recite "automatically converting the first set of data into a predefined format that is accepted by the first credit reporting agency," "integrating credit agency validation logic," "determining, based on results of the analyzing and the integrating, whether the consumer credit report file is compliant," and "modifying the consumer credit report file and verifying compliance through integration of an AI model and the credit agency validation logic”. However, these steps are no more than instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer functions. The conversion of data into a predefined format is a routine data transformation step. The use of validation logic and an AI model to check data is a common application of algorithms to data analysis. The determination of compliance and the modification of the file are logical decision steps. None of these elements, considered individually or as an ordered combination, transforms the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. The claims do not recite an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology. They do not recite a specific machine or apparatus that goes beyond general-purpose computer components. They do not effect a transformation of any article to a different state or thing. See MPEP § 2106.05. Applicant's reliance on Ex parte Desjardins is misplaced. In Desjardins, the claims were found to recite an improvement in the functioning of a computer because they used less storage capacity and enabled a reduction in system complexity. Here, the claims do not recite any such improvement. The claims do not identify any reduction in storage capacity, processing time, or system complexity. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-6, 8-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites “a method for generating a file that is suitable for submission to a first credit reporting agency, the method being implemented by …, the method comprising: receiving, by the …, a first set of data that relates to a consumer; generating, by the …, a consumer credit report file by using the first set of data; wherein the generating of the consumer credit report file includes … converting the first set of data into a predetermined format that is accepted by the first credit reporting agency; analyzing, by the …, the consumer credit report file to determine whether the consumer credit report file violates at least one rule from among a series of rules, wherein the series of rules includes at least one first tier rule that identifies first values that are not includible in the consumer credit report file and at least one second tier rule that identifies second values that are updatable in order to become includible in the consumer credit report file; integrating, by that …, credit agency validation logic, associated with the first credit reporting agency, to recognize a violation of each rule from among the series of rules; determining, by the … based on a results of the analyzing of the consumer credit report file and the integrating of the credit agency validation logic, whether the consumer credit report file is compliant with applicable governmental regulations; when a determination is made that the consumer credit report file is not compliant with at least one from among the applicable governmental regulations, modifying, by the …, the consumer credit report file such that, as modified, the consumer credit report file is fully compliant with all of the applicable governmental regulations, wherein the modifying includes integrating an … and the credit agency validation logic to perform the modifying and to verify compliance with the applicable government regulations; transmitting, by the …, the consumer credit report file to the first credit reporting agency; and determining, by the … based on a result of the analyzing and the modifying, first score that provides a rating for the consumer credit report file”. These limitations describe an abstract idea of verifying payment history and corresponds to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity( fundamental economic practices such as hedging and mitigating risk). Accordingly, claim 1 recites an abstract idea ( Step 2A: Prong 1: YES ). The claim also recites as additional elements such as “at least one processor” which do no more than implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment. Therefore, claim 1 recites an abstract idea without a practical application ( Step 2A - Prong 2: NO ). Further, as the additional elements of claim 1 do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field. Thus, claim 1 is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO ). Claims 10 and 19 also recite the abstract idea of idea of verifying payment history and corresponds to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (fundamental economic practices such as hedging and mitigating risk) step one of step 2A (MPEP 2106.04). Claim 10 includes the additional elements of “computing apparatus comprising: a processor; a memory, and a communication interface coupled to each of the processor and the memory, wherein the processor is configured, communication interface”. Claim 19 includes the additional elements of “a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions …, the storage medium comprising executable code which, when executed by a processor, cause the processor”. The additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or link the abstract idea a particular technological environment. Therefore, as they do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field. Claim 2 recites “wherein the consumer credit report file is … modifiable so as to ensure that the consumer credit report file does not violate the at least one second tier rule” which further defines the abstract idea. The claim recites “automatic” as an additional element. The additional element does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or link the abstract idea a particular technological environment. Therefore, as it does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, it does not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field. Claim 3 recites “when the consumer credit report file violates the at least one first tier rule, prompting, by the …, a user to provide an input that is usable for replacing at least one invalid value that is not includible in the consumer credit report file” which further defines the abstract idea. The claim recites “at least one processor” as an additional element. The additional element does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or link the abstract idea a particular technological environment. Therefore, as it does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, it does not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field. Claim 4 recites “receiving, by the at …, from an …, a dispute inquiry that relates to the first set of data; analyzing, by the …, the consumer credit report file and the dispute inquiry to determine an accuracy of the first set of data; creating, by …, a workflow that compiles information related to the dispute inquiry; analyzing, by the at …, the consumer credit report file, the created workflow, and the dispute injury to determine an accuracy of the first set of data; and when a determination is made that the first set of data includes at least one inaccurate data item, …modifying, by the …, the at least one inaccurate data item in order to resolve the dispute inquiry” which further defines the abstract idea. The claim recites “at least one processor” as an additional element. The additional element does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or link the abstract idea a particular technological environment. Therefore, as it does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, it does not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field. Claim 5 recites “capturing, by …, historical data related to prior dispute inquires; transmitting, by the …, the first set of data and the historical data to a …; generating, by the …, via the … corrections to the first set of data; generating, based on the modifying of the at least one inaccurate data item, a response to the dispute inquiry; and transmitting, by the … to at least one predetermined entity, a notification of the response to the dispute inquiry” which further defines the abstract idea. as an additional element. The claim recites “at least one processor” as an additional element. The additional element does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or link the abstract idea a particular technological environment. Therefore, as it does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, it does not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field. Claim 6 recites “the dispute inquiry comprises at least one from among a first inquiry that relates to a discrepancy in a transaction payment history and a second inquiry that relates to incorrect information included in a credit report” which further defines the abstract idea. Claim 8 recites “assessing each respective field included in the consumer credit report file to determine whether the respective field is a key field; assigning, to each respective field included in the consumer credit report file, a respective weight; evaluating each respective field to determine a respective percentage value that indicates an adherence to a corresponding standard; for each respective field, combining the respective weight with the respective percentage value to determine a respective field-specific health check score; and calculating the first score based on a combination of the field-specific scores for all fields included in the consumer credit report file” which further defines the abstract idea. Claim 9 recites “wherein when a particular field 1s determined as being a key field, the respective weight for a value that corresponds to a first tier rule is equal to one from among 1.0, 1.25, 1.5, 1.75, and 2.0, and the respective weight for a value that corresponds to a second tier rule is equal to 0.75; and when the particular field is determined as not being a key field, the respective weight for the value that corresponds to the first tier rule is equal to 1.0, and the respective weight for the value that corresponds to the second tier rule is equal to 0.50” which further defines the abstract idea. Claim 11 recites “wherein the consumer credit report file is … modifiable so as to ensure that the consumer credit report file does not violate the at least one second tier rule” which further defines the abstract idea. The claim recites “automatically” as an additional element. The additional element does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or link the abstract idea a particular technological environment. Therefore, as it does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, it does not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field. Claim 12 recites “when the consumer credit report file violates the at least one first tier rule, prompting a user to provide an input that is usable for replacing at least one invalid value that is not includible in the consumer credit report file” which further defines the abstract idea. Claim 13 recites “receive, via the …, from an …, a dispute inquiry that relates to the first set of data; analyze the consumer credit report file and the dispute inquiry to determine an accuracy of the first set of data; creating, by …, a workflow that compiles information related to the dispute inquiry; analyzing, by the at …, the consumer credit report file, the created workflow, and the dispute injury to determine an accuracy of the first set of data; and when a determination is made that the first set of data includes at least one inaccurate data item, …modifying, by the …, the at least one inaccurate data item in order to resolve the dispute inquiry” which further defines the abstract idea. The claim recites “communication interface” as an additional element. The additional element does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or link the abstract idea a particular technological environment. Therefore, as it does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, it does not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field. Claim 14 recites “capturing, by …, historical data related to prior dispute inquires; transmitting, by the …, the first set of data and the historical data to a …; generating, by the …, via the … corrections to the first set of data; generate, based on the modifying of the at least one inaccurate data item, a response to the dispute inquiry; and transmit, by the … to at least one predetermined entity, a notification of the response to the dispute inquiry” which further defines the abstract idea. as an additional element. The claim recites “communication interface” as an additional element. The additional element does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or link the abstract idea a particular technological environment. Therefore, as it does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, it does not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field. Claim 15 recites “wherein the dispute inquiry comprises at least one from among a first inquiry that relates to a discrepancy in a transaction payment history and a second inquiry that relates to incorrect information included in a credit report” which further defines the abstract idea. Claim 17 recites “assessing each respective field included in the consumer credit report file to determine whether the respective field is a key field; assigning, to each respective field included in the consumer credit report file, a respective weight; evaluating each respective field to determine a respective percentage value that indicates an adherence to a corresponding standard; for each respective field, combining the respective weight with the respective percentage value to determine a respective field-specific health check score; and calculating the first score based on a combination of the field-specific scores for all fields included in the consumer credit report file” which” which further defines the abstract idea. Claim 18 recites “wherein when a particular field 1s determined as being a key field, the respective weight for a value that corresponds to a first tier rule is equal to one from among 1.0, 1.25, 1.5, 1.75, and 2.0, and the respective weight for a value that corresponds to a second tier rule is equal to 0.75; and when the particular field is determined as not being a key field, the respective weight for the value that corresponds to the first tier rule is equal to 1.0, and the respective weight for the value that corresponds to the second tier rule is equal to 0.50” which further defines the abstract idea. Claim 20 recites “wherein the consumer credit report file is … modifiable so as to ensure that the consumer credit report file does not violate the at least one second tier rule” which further defines the abstract idea. The claim recites “automatically” as an additional element. The additional element does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or link the abstract idea a particular technological environment. Therefore, as it does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, it does not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field. Conclusion 07-39 AIA 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 KEVIN T POE whose telephone number is (571)272-9789. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:30am through 6pm 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, Calvin Hewitt can be reached on 571-272-6709 . 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. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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. /K.T.P/Examiner, Art Unit 3692 /KEVIN T POE/ /RYAN D DONLON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3692 June 12, 2026 Application/Control Number: 18/909,650 Page 2 Art Unit: 3692 Application/Control Number: 18/909,650 Page 3 Art Unit: 3692
Prosecution Insights