DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, 18/952,956 filed on 11/19/2024 is a Continuation of 17/714,929, filed 04/06/2022, which claims Domestic Priority from U.S. Provisional Application 63/171,482, filed on 04/06/2021.
The effective filing date is after the AIA date of March 16, 2013, and so the application is being examined under the “first inventor to file” provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Status of the Application
This Final Office Action is in response to Applicant’s communication of 04/20/2026.
Claims 1-21 are pending, of which claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent.
In the most recent amendment, independent claims 1, 8, and 15 and dependent claims 5, 12, and 19 have been amended.
All pending claims have been examined on the merits.
The Amendments to the Specification filed 11/19/2024 have been entered into the record.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 04/20/2026 has been considered.
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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea, without “significantly more”.
Based on the flowchart in MPEP § 2106, Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo analysis is: “Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?”
In regards to Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo analysis, independent claim 1 is a method claim, independent claim 8 is an article of manufacture claim or product by process claim (“non-transitory computer readable medium”), and independent claim 15 is an apparatus claim.
For the sake of compact prosecution, we continue with the Alice/Mayo “abstract idea” analysis.
Step 2A, prong 1 of the Alice/Mayo analysis is: “Does the claim recite a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature), or an abstract idea?”
In regards to Step 2A, prongs 1 and 2 of the Alice/Mayo analysis, the abstract idea elements recited in independent claim 15 are shown in italic font. (The “additional elements” and “extra solution steps” are shown in italic and underlined font):
15. A computing device, comprising:
a processor; and
a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations including:
generating a graphical user interface (GUI) displaying parameters of a financial objective and a plurality of financial model icons, wherein each of the plurality of financial model icons lists a future credit score and a corresponding payment, wherein each future credit score is a predicted result following performance of the corresponding payment;
receiving, by the GUI, user input modifying a first parameter of the financial objective;
dynamically updating one or more of the plurality of financial model icons;
altering the GUI based on the dynamically updating of the one or more of the plurality of financial model icons resulting in an adjustment of a positioning of a first financial model icon.
More specifically, claims 1-21 recite an abstract idea: “Commercial or Legal Interactions (Including Agreements in the form of Contracts; Legal Obligations; Advertising, Marketing, or Sales Activities or Behaviors; Business Relations)”, as discussed in MPEP §2106(a)(2) Parts (I) and (II), and in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
The “Commercial or Legal Interactions” elements include:
“wherein each of the plurality of financial model icons lists a future credit score and a corresponding payment, wherein each future credit score is a predicted result following performance of the corresponding payment”.
“dynamically updating one or more of the plurality of financial model icons”.
The “additional elements” include: “a processor”, “a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations”, and “a graphical user interface (GUI)”.
Moreover, “additional extra-solution activities” include: “receiving, by the GUI, user input modifying a first parameter of the financial objective” and “displaying parameters of a financial objective and a plurality of financial model icons”.
Step 2A, prong 2 of the Alice/Mayo analysis is “Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?”
In regards to Step 2A, prong 2 of the Alice/Mayo analysis, this abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, because:
The claim is directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements. The generically recited computer elements (“a processor”, “a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations”, and “a graphical user interface (GUI)”) do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea, because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The claim amounts to adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the abstract idea, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
The extra-solution activities (“receiving, by the GUI, user input modifying a first parameter of the financial objective” and “displaying parameters of a financial objective and a plurality of financial model icons”) do not add a meaningful limitation to the method, as they are insignificant extra-solution activity;
The combination of the abstract idea with the additional elements (generically recited computer elements), and/or with the extra-solution activities, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo analysis is: “Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?”
In regards to Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo analysis, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, because:
When considering the elements "alone and in combination" (“a processor”, “a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations”, and “a graphical user interface (GUI)”), they do not add significantly more (also known as an "inventive concept") to the exception, because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. Instead, they merely add the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the abstract idea, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
In regards to the extra solution activities (“receiving, by the GUI, user input modifying a first parameter of the financial objective” and “displaying parameters of a financial objective and a plurality of financial model icons”), these are recognized as such by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d).
More specifically, in regards to the “storing” step (“a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon instructions”), see the court cases Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (storing and retrieving information in memory); and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (storing and retrieving information in memory).
More specifically, in regards to the “receiving” and “communicating” steps, see the court cases OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network) and (presenting offers and gathering statistics), OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
Moreover, in regards to the “displaying” steps, see Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1844 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Holding that the claimed menu graphic user interface is an abstract idea under 35 USC §101, because claimant "[did] not claim a particular way of programming or designing the software to create menus that have these features, but instead merely claims the resulting systems").
Moreover, in regards to “apply it”, according to MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2):
Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
The Examiner holds that the independent claims “use a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data)” or “simply add a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea”.
Independent claims 1 and 8 are rejected on the same grounds as independent claim 1.
Independent claim 8 is also rejected on the grounds that it recites a computer-readable medium, which is merely another generic computer component.
All dependent claims are also rejected, because they merely further define the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 8-11, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §§102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by US 20200364785 A1 to Olson et al. (“Olson”. Eff. Filed on Apr. 23, 2013. Published on Nov. 19, 2020).
In regards to claim 1,
1. A computerized method, comprising:
generating a graphical user interface (GUI) displaying parameters of a financial objective and a plurality of financial model icons, wherein each of the plurality of financial model icons lists a future credit score and a corresponding payment, wherein each future credit score is a predicted result following performance of the corresponding payment;
(See Olson, claim 10: “A non-transitory computer storage medium storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform the following method:
generate user interface data including, for a plurality of financial accounts of a user, a corresponding plurality of selectable icons, at least some of the selectable icons indicating:
account information for the corresponding financial account; and
a graphical indication of an impact on a credit score of the user resulting from a characteristic of the corresponding financial account, wherein the graphical indication comprises a color representative of the impact; and
in response to an indication of a selection of an individual icon by the user, load a shortcut menu with interactive elements that, when selected by the user, invokes a remedial action to remedy the impact.”)
(See Olson, claim 14: “The non-transitory computer storage medium of claim 10, wherein the graphical indication comprises icons that are arranged in the user interface data based on one or more attributes of the corresponding financial account.”)
(See Olson, claim 15: “The non-transitory computer storage medium of claim 14, wherein the icons are further arranged in the user interface data based on at least one of credit utilization, account balance, credit limit, age of accounts, time next payment is due, amount due, or impact on credit score of a late payment of the corresponding account.”)
receiving, by the GUI, user input modifying a first parameter of the financial objective;
dynamically updating one or more of the plurality of financial model icons; and
(See Olson, claim 10: “A non-transitory computer storage medium storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform the following method:
generate user interface data including, for a plurality of financial accounts of a user, a corresponding plurality of selectable icons, at least some of the selectable icons indicating:
account information for the corresponding financial account; and
a graphical indication of an impact on a credit score of the user resulting from a characteristic of the corresponding financial account, wherein the graphical indication comprises a color representative of the impact; and
in response to an indication of a selection of an individual icon by the user, load a shortcut menu with interactive elements that, when selected by the user, invokes a remedial action to remedy the impact.”)
altering the GUI based on the dynamically updating of the one or more of the plurality of financial model icons resulting in an adjustment of a positioning of a first financial model icon.
(See Olson, para. [0057]: “The consumer is informed, by inclusion of the oldest account indicator 310, that the Discover card is the oldest account, and by the included text that the account helps with the age of accounts score factor. In some embodiments, the system may inform a consumer of multiple factors that are impacted from each account. The system may also inform the consumer of how each account contributes to negative impacts. For example, instead of visual indicators of positive attributes, some or all of the consumer's accounts may have negative indicators. For example, the credit report system 100 may determine which accounts are negatively impacting one or more factors of the consumer's credit score. Those accounts may be pointed out to the consumer with an indicator corresponding to the factor that is negatively impacted. In FIG. 3, for example, the tile associated with the consumer's Delta Miles account may include an indicator informing the consumer that the Delta Miles account is negatively impacting the credit usage factor of the consumer's credit score. In some embodiments, the credit report system 100 may sort the consumer's accounts based on their impact on the consumer's credit score. For example, the accounts may be sorted based on the most positive impact, the most negative impact, or the greatest impact regardless of positive or negative.”)
In regards to claim 2,
2.The computerized method of claim 1, wherein the adjustment of the positioning of the first financial model icon includes positioning the first financial model icon to be proximate the first parameter, wherein an advantage provided by a first financial model represented by the first financial model icon corresponds the first parameter.
(See Olson, para. [0057]: “The consumer is informed, by inclusion of the oldest account indicator 310, that the Discover card is the oldest account, and by the included text that the account helps with the age of accounts score factor. In some embodiments, the system may inform a consumer of multiple factors that are impacted from each account. The system may also inform the consumer of how each account contributes to negative impacts. For example, instead of visual indicators of positive attributes, some or all of the consumer's accounts may have negative indicators. For example, the credit report system 100 may determine which accounts are negatively impacting one or more factors of the consumer's credit score. Those accounts may be pointed out to the consumer with an indicator corresponding to the factor that is negatively impacted. In FIG. 3, for example, the tile associated with the consumer's Delta Miles account may include an indicator informing the consumer that the Delta Miles account is negatively impacting the credit usage factor of the consumer's credit score. In some embodiments, the credit report system 100 may sort the consumer's accounts based on their impact on the consumer's credit score. For example, the accounts may be sorted based on the most positive impact, the most negative impact, or the greatest impact regardless of positive or negative.”)
In regards to claim 3,
3. The computerized method of claim 1, wherein the adjustment of the positioning of the first financial model icon includes positioning the first financial model icon in a more visibly prominent position relative to a remaining subset of the plurality of financial model icons.
(See Olson, para. [0057]: “The consumer is informed, by inclusion of the oldest account indicator 310, that the Discover card is the oldest account, and by the included text that the account helps with the age of accounts score factor. In some embodiments, the system may inform a consumer of multiple factors that are impacted from each account. The system may also inform the consumer of how each account contributes to negative impacts. For example, instead of visual indicators of positive attributes, some or all of the consumer's accounts may have negative indicators. For example, the credit report system 100 may determine which accounts are negatively impacting one or more factors of the consumer's credit score. Those accounts may be pointed out to the consumer with an indicator corresponding to the factor that is negatively impacted. In FIG. 3, for example, the tile associated with the consumer's Delta Miles account may include an indicator informing the consumer that the Delta Miles account is negatively impacting the credit usage factor of the consumer's credit score. In some embodiments, the credit report system 100 may sort the consumer's accounts based on their impact on the consumer's credit score. For example, the accounts may be sorted based on the most positive impact, the most negative impact, or the greatest impact regardless of positive or negative.”)
The Examiner interprets that “the accounts may be sorted based on the most positive impact, the most negative impact, or the greatest impact regardless of positive or negative” reads upon the claimed feature of “positioning the first financial model icon in a more visibly prominent position relative to a remaining subset of the plurality of financial model icons”.
In regards to claim 4,
4. The computerized method of claim 1, wherein each of a plurality of financial models represented by the plurality of financial model icons correspond to one or more action steps, that when carried out within a predetermined time window, result in modification of a credit score of an individual.
(See Olson, claim 6: “The computing system of claim 5, wherein the tiles are further arranged in the user interface based on at least one of credit utilization, account balance, credit limit, age of accounts, time next payment is due, amount due, or impact on credit score of a late payment of the corresponding account.”)
(See Olson, para. [0057]: “The consumer is informed, by inclusion of the oldest account indicator 310, that the Discover card is the oldest account, and by the included text that the account helps with the age of accounts score factor. In some embodiments, the system may inform a consumer of multiple factors that are impacted from each account. The system may also inform the consumer of how each account contributes to negative impacts. For example, instead of visual indicators of positive attributes, some or all of the consumer's accounts may have negative indicators. For example, the credit report system 100 may determine which accounts are negatively impacting one or more factors of the consumer's credit score. Those accounts may be pointed out to the consumer with an indicator corresponding to the factor that is negatively impacted. In FIG. 3, for example, the tile associated with the consumer's Delta Miles account may include an indicator informing the consumer that the Delta Miles account is negatively impacting the credit usage factor of the consumer's credit score. In some embodiments, the credit report system 100 may sort the consumer's accounts based on their impact on the consumer's credit score. For example, the accounts may be sorted based on the most positive impact, the most negative impact, or the greatest impact regardless of positive or negative.”)
In regards to claims 8 to 11, they are rejected on the same grounds as claims 1 to 4, respectively.
In regards to claims 15 to 18, they are rejected on the same grounds as claims 1 to 4, respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 5, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0364785 A1 to Olson et al. (“Olson”. Eff. Filed on Apr. 23, 2013. Published on Nov. 19, 2020) as applied to claims 1-4, 8-11, and 15-18, and further in view of US 2021/0398210 A1 to Mhlanga et al. (“Mhlanga”. Eff. Filed on Jun. 17, 2020. Published on Dec. 23, 2021).
In regards to claim 5, under a conservative interpretation of Olson, it could be argued that Olson does not explicitly teach the italicized portions below, which are taught by Mhlanga:
5. The computerized method of claim 4, wherein the plurality of financial models is determined by a machine learning model or artificial intelligence schema that are trained on previous financial objectives, associated parameters, and historical financial models of the individual or one or more secondary individuals.
(See Mhlanga, para. [0031]: ”a credit score computation module, coupled to the memory unit, the credit score computation module being configured to interrogate the memory unit and calculate a predicted credit score associated with the user as a function of the transaction data in the memory unit, and to store the resultant predicted credit score in the memory unit;”)
(See also Mhlanga, para. [0032]: “a machine learning unit, coupled to the memory unit and the credit score computation module, the machine learning unit being configured to train a machine learning model to optimize the credit score coefficients using the data associated with each of the plurality of the other users, and to store the resultant data in the memory unit for future interrogation by the credit score computation module;”)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA), before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include in the method for “Presenting credit score information”, as taught by Olson, with “Systems and methods of transaction tracking and analysis for near real-time individualized credit scoring”, as taught by Mhlanga, because Olson does not specify which algorithms it uses to compute the credit scores.
In regards to claims 12 and 19, they are rejected on the same grounds as claim 5.
Claims 6, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olson in view of Mhlanga as applied to claims 5, 12, and 19, and further in view of CA 3042830 A1 to Phillips (“Phillps”. Eff. Filed on May 9, 2019. Published on Nov. 11, 2018).
In regards to claim 6, under a conservative interpretation of Olson in view of Mhlanga, it could be argued that Olson in view of Mhlanga does not explicitly teach the italicized portions below, which are taught by Phillips:
6. The computerized method of claim 5, wherein personally identifiable information (PII) is automatically removed information from the previous financial objectives, the associated parameters, and the historical financial models of the one or more secondary individuals before the data is used in training of the machine learning model.
(See Phillips, para. [00176]: ”To the extent embodiments and/or implementations described herein utilize personal information (referred to in some jurisdictions as personally identifiable information (PIT)), it should be understood that such personal information is to be used in accordance with all applicable laws concerning protection of that personal information.”)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA), before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include in the method for “Presenting credit score information”, as taught by Olson, with “Systems and methods of transaction tracking and analysis for near real-time individualized credit scoring”, as taught by Mhlanga, with “A secure system … that may receive application questions for an individual applying for credit with an organization”, as further taught by Phillips, because according to Phillips para. [0176], there exist applicable laws concerning protection of that personal information (that must be followed).
In regards to claims 13 and 20, they are rejected on the same grounds as claim 6.
Claims 7, 14, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olson as applied to claims 4, 11, and 18, and further in view of CA 3042830 A1 to Phillips (“Phillps”. Eff. Filed on May 9, 2019. Published on Nov. 11, 2018).
In regards to claim 7, Olson teaches:
7.The computerized method of claim 4,
… updating the GUI includes displaying the first financial model icon in a visibly protruding manner relative to a remaining subset of the plurality of financial model icons.
(See Olson, para. [0040]: “In the embodiment shown in FIG. 1, the credit report system 100 is configured to execute the user interface module 110 in order to for example, receive credit report and summary attributes regarding a specific consumer, generate one or more credit report user interfaces, receive data input and/or user interactions with the user interfaces, and update the user interface and/or visual indicators in real-time based on the received data input and/or user interactions, and perform other methods as described herein.”)
However, under a conservative interpretation of Olson, it could be argued that Olson does not explicitly teach the italicized portions below, which are taught by Phillips:
wherein the financial objective refers to purchasing a house, the parameters include a total cost of the house, a downpayment, a monthly payment, and a target date, …
(See Phillips, para. [0046]: “The application may be an application for a credit card, for a line of credit, for a home loan, and/or for any other type of credit offered by the first organization.”)
(See Phillips, para. [0019]: “Additionally, the credit worthiness information may include credit information relating to transactions made between individuals and a first group of organizations and/or rating information relating to transactions between individuals and a second group of organizations. The credit information may include information indicating a credit score, an income, a number of open lines of credit, an amount of outstanding debt, a mortgage payment history, a number timely (or untimely) payments made on behalf of the individuals, and/or the like.”)
The Examiner holds that the other claimed parameters such as “total cost of the house, a downpayment, a monthly payment, and a target date” are old and well known metrics used when determining the credit worthiness of a mortgage borrower.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA), before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include in the method for “Presenting credit score information”, as taught by Olson, with “A secure system … that may receive application questions for an individual applying for credit with an organization”, as further taught by Phillips, because according to Phillips para. [0176], there exist applicable laws concerning protection of that personal information (that must be followed), and also because Olson does not specify which algorithms it uses to compute the credit scores..
In regards to claims 14 and 21, they are rejected on the same grounds as claim 7.
Response to Amendments
Re: Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The 35 USC § 101 rejection is maintained, because the amendments to the independent claims 1, 8, and 15 merely amend the abstract idea. The newly added feature of “wherein each future credit score is a predicted result following performance of the corresponding payment” is both a mathematical step and a “Commercial or Legal Interaction (Including Agreements in the form of Contracts; Legal Obligations; Advertising, Marketing, or Sales Activities or Behaviors; Business Relations)”, and therefore adding this feature to the independent claims does not overcome the 35 USC § 101 rejection.
Re: Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
The 35 USC §§ 102 and 103 rejections are maintained, because the amendments to the independent claims 1, 8, and 15 do not overcome the 35 USC § 102 rejection rejection based on the Olson reference.
Olson’s claim 15 states the following: “The non-transitory computer storage medium of claim 14, wherein the icons are further arranged in the user interface data based on at least one of credit utilization, account balance, credit limit, age of accounts, time next payment is due, amount due, or impact on credit score of a late payment of the corresponding account.” Therefore, it is inherent that Olson calculates a future credit score based on a late payment of the corresponding account, and also calculates a predicted change in the credit score.
The Examiner holds that this teaching reads upon the newly added feature of “wherein each future credit score is a predicted result following performance of the corresponding payment”, in particular Olson’s teaching of “impact on credit score of a late payment of the corresponding account.”
The newly added feature of “wherein each future credit score is a predicted result following performance of the corresponding payment” is both a mathematical step and a method of organizing human activity (more specifically, “Commercial or Legal Interaction (Including Agreements in the form of Contracts; Legal Obligations; Advertising, Marketing, or Sales Activities or Behaviors; Business Relations)”), and therefore adding this feature to the independent claims does not overcome the 35 USC § 102 rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications should be directed to Examiner Ayal Sharon, whose telephone number is (571) 272-5614, and fax number is (571) 273-1794. The Examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 9 AM and 6 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, SPE Christine Behncke can be reached at (571) 272-8103 or at christine.behncke@uspto.gov. The fax 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.
Sincerely,
/Ayal I. Sharon/
Examiner, Art Unit 3695
June 12, 2026
Prosecution Insights