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 8/3/26.
Claim status:
Amended claims: 1-3, 7-13, 17-18 and 20
Canceled claims: 4-6 and 14-16
Added New claims: None
Pending claims: 1-3, 7-13 and 17-20
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 1-3, 7-13 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to statutory subject matter. Specifically, the invention of claims 1-3, 7-13 and 17-20 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claims 1, 11 and 20 are directed to a system (claim 1), a method (claim 11) and a machine-readable non-transitory storage media (claim 20). Therefore on its face, each of claims 1, 11 and 20 is directed to a statutory category of invention under Step 1 of the 2019 PEG. However each of claims 1, 11 and 20 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) storing instructions, (ii) responsive to receiving a request by a first merchant hosting one or more shops on an e-commerce platform for a loan, obtain first data from a public data source and second data from the e-commerce platform; (iii) provide the first data and the second data as inputs to a trained predictor and execute the trained predictor to output a distribution of estimated future revenue for the first merchant, wherein the trained predictor comprises a trained transformer neural network module, (iv) obtain the second data from the e-commerce platform, the second data comprising sales information relating to a plurality of merchants active on the e-commerce platform, the plurality of merchants comprising the first merchant; (v) combine the first data and the second data into input data; (vi) perform a principal component analysis on the input data to calculate a set of principal component values with respect to a set of principal components;(vii) integrate the set of principal component values with data specific to operations of the first merchant's shops, (viii) provide both data to the trained transformer neural network module; (ix) segment, for each shop operated by the first merchant on the e-commerce platform, the revenue of the shop into a plurality of bins, wherein each of the plurality of the bins represents a quantile of probability of revenue for the shop; (x) calculate, based on the distribution of estimated revenue and a cash in a payment account associated with the first merchant, a default probability (PD) value and a loss-given-default (LGD) value associated with potential loan amounts and loan interest rates; (xi) determine, using the calculated PD and LGD values, one or more feasible contracts including a target loan amount and a target loan interest rate; (xii) and generate at least one loan contract for providing a loan to the first merchant with the target loan amount and the target loan interest rate, wherein the second data comprises historical data over a time period that includes a plurality of durations, and wherein the second data is represented as a time series of data structures, each data structure corresponding to a specific duration within the time period, and the trained transformer neural network module comprising a multi-headed attention mechanism with a plurality of attention heads under the broadest reasonable interpretation covers methods of organizing human activity – commercial or legal interactions or fundamental economic principles or practices - risk mitigation. (Independent claims 11 and 20 recite similar limitations and the analysis is the same).
That is, other than reciting one or more processing devices, one or more storage devices and wherein each of the plurality of attention heads processes a corresponding data structure associated with a specific time step in the time series nothing in the claim precludes the steps from being directed to methods of organizing human activity – commercial or legal interactions or fundamental economic principles or practices - risk mitigation. 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”).
These “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, one or more processing devices, one or more storage devices and wherein each of the plurality of attention heads processes a corresponding data structure associated with a specific time step in the time series. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional elements – one or more processing devices, one or more storage devices and wherein each of the plurality of attention heads processes a corresponding data structure associated with a specific time step in the time series.
The one or more processing devices, one or more storage devices and wherein each of the plurality of attention heads processes a corresponding data structure associated with a specific time step in the time series 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 instructions 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 one or more processing devices and one or more storage devices, storing instructions, responsive to receiving a request by a first merchant hosting one or more shops on an e-commerce platform for a loan, obtain first data from a public data source and second data from the e-commerce platform; provide the first data and the second data as inputs to a trained predictor and execute the trained predictor to output a distribution of estimated future revenue for the first merchant, wherein the trained predictor comprises a trained transformer neural network module, obtain the second data from the e-commerce platform, the second data comprising sales information relating to a plurality of merchants active on the e-commerce platform, the plurality of merchants comprising the first merchant; combine the first data and the second data into input data; perform a principal component analysis on the input data to calculate a set of principal component values with respect to a set of principal components; integrate the set of principal component values with data specific to operations of the first merchant's shops, provide both data to the trained transformer neural network module; segment, for each shop operated by the first merchant on the e-commerce platform, the revenue of the shop into a plurality of bins, wherein each of the plurality of the bins represents a quantile of probability of revenue for the shop; calculate, based on the distribution of estimated revenue and a cash in a payment account associated with the first merchant, a default probability (PD) value and a loss-given-default (LGD) value associated with potential loan amounts and loan interest rates; determine, using the calculated PD and LGD values, one or more feasible contracts including a target loan amount and a target loan interest rate; and generate at least one loan contract for providing a loan to the first merchant with the target loan amount and the target loan interest rate, wherein the second data comprises historical data over a time period that includes a plurality of durations, and wherein the second data is represented as a time series of data structures, each data structure corresponding to a specific duration within the time period, and the trained transformer neural network module comprising a multi-headed attention mechanism with a plurality of attention heads, wherein each of the plurality of attention heads processes a corresponding data structure associated with a specific time step in the time series, amount to instructions 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 2-3, 7-10, 12-13 and 17-19 merely further explain 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 1-3, 7-13 and 17-20 are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-3, 7-13 and 17-20 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 limitations “the revenue of the shop” at line 21 and “the distribution of estimated revenue” at line 23. There is insufficient antecedent basis for each of these limitations in the claim. Claims 2-3 and 7-10 depend from Claim 1 and are rejected for this reason.
Further, Claim 2 recites the limitation “the recalculated PD value” at line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 3 depends from Claim 2 and is rejected for this reason.
Further, Claim 7 recites the limitations “the distribution of revenue” at lines 3-4 and “the predicted distributions” at line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for each of these limitations in the claim.
Further, Claim 8 recites the limitation “the transformer neural network module” at line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the revenue of the shop” at line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 12-13 and 17-19 depend from Claim 11 and are rejected for this reason.
Further, Claim 12 recites the limitation “the recalculated PD value” at line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 13 depends from Claim 12 and is rejected for this reason.
Further, Claim 17 recites the limitation “the distribution of revenue” at lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Further, Claim 18 recites the limitation “the transformer neural network module” at line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Further, Claim 19 recites the limitation “the collateral” at line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “the distribution of estimated revenue” at page 8, line 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 8/3/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
35 U.S.C. 101
The Applicant states that “claim 1 as presented recites additional elements (e.g., those emphasized features) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea” (page 12). The Examiner disagrees with this sentence because the claims are an improvement of the abstract idea only. The Invention is a business solution to the business problem of managing loan default risks. 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 Claims do not provide an improvement over prior systems and only add details to the abstract idea. They do not address a problem particular to computer networks and merely apply the abstract idea on general computer components. The amended claims make the abstract idea more specific, and managing loan default risks is common and is not an unconventional activity. Applicant’s remarks about why these limitations provide a practical application fail to surface any technical improvement identified in the specification. Therefore, this is not an inventive concept and significantly more.
35 U.S.C. 112
The claims are rejected under 35 USC § 112 as indicated above in the Office action.
35 U.S.C. 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
