Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
The following Non-Final office action is in response to application filed on 12/03/2024.
Priority Date: (Claimed)-CON of (#18/503,379)>(11/07/2023)>(Prov #63/480,826)>(01-20-2023)
Claim Status:
Claims (Canceled):1-20
Pending claims : 21-40
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 1-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
In particular, claims are directed to a judicial exception (Abstract idea) without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, (Step-1) it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. (Step-2A) If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, (Step-2B) it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Examples of abstract ideas grouping include: (a) Mental processes; (b) Certain methods of organizing human activities [ i. Fundamental Economic Practice; ii. Commercial or Legal Interaction; iii. Managing Personal behavior or Relations between People]; and (c) Mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. (2014).
Analysis is based on the 2019 Revised Patent Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG)-(see MPEP § 2106.04(II) and 2106.04(d). )-[see MPEP § 2106.04(II), and § 2106.04(d) & MPEP § 2106.05(a),(b),(c),(e )…].
[Step-1] The claims are directed to a method/system/machine, which are a statutory category of invention.
Claim 1 (exemplary) recites a series of steps for Automated loan processing and debt repayment options.
[Step-2A]-Prong 1:The claim 21 is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception:
The claim 21 recites the limitations to:
receive, from an endpoint device, a plurality of service requests including: a request firm identifier, the request firm identifier being identical between each of the plurality of service requests; one or more selectable service request option selections chosen from the one or more selectable service request options associated with the partner company; one or more service request discount option selections chosen from the one or more service request discount options associated with the partner company; and one or more service request resolution preference selections chosen from the one or more service request resolution preferences associated with the partner company;
authenticate the request firm identifier against the unique firm identifier to confirm that the plurality of service requests is associated with the partner company;
validate the one or more selectable service request option selections, the one or more service request discount option selections, and the one or more service request resolution preference selections against the one or more service request limitation elements associated with the partner company;
determine whether the validation is denied; for each of the one or more selectable service request option selections for which the validation is denied:
flag as rejected the one or more selectable service request option selections, if at least one of the one or more selectable service request option selections was not validated against the one or more service request limitation elements;
flag as rejected the one or more service request discount option selections, if at least one of the one or more service request discount option selections was not validated against the one or more service request limitation elements;
flag as rejected the one or more service request resolution preference selections, if at least one of the one or more service request resolution preference selections was not validated against the one or more service request limitation elements;
provide for display on a user interface associated with the endpoint device a notification including any selectable service request option selections, service request discount option selections, and resolution preference selections flagged as rejected; and
provide for display on the user interface a request for revision to each of the plurality of service requests until none of the selectable service request option selections, service request discount option selections, or resolution preference selections is flagged as rejected;
approve, in response to the validation, the plurality of service requests; and
provide for display on the user interface a notification advising of the approval.
The claimed method/system/machine simply describes series of steps for Automated loan processing and debt repayment options.
These limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations via human commercial or business or transactional activities/interactions, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting one or more servers/processors, devices and computer network nothing in the claim precludes the limitations from practically being performed by organizing human business activity. For example, without the structure elements language, the claim encompasses the activities that can be performed manually between the users and a third party. These limitations are directed to an abstract idea because they are business interaction/sale activity that falls within the enumerated group of “certain methods of organizing human activity” in the 2019 PEG.
[Step-2A]-Prong 2:
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if it is integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional limitation of using one or more servers/processors, devices and computer network to perform the steps. The processor in the steps is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing data. This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
[Step-2B]
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas (whether claim provides inventive concept).
As discussed above, the recitation of the claimed limitations amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a processor (using the processor as a tool to implement the abstract idea). Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the processor at each step of the process performs purely generic computer functions. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. The same analysis applies here, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at or provide an inventive concept.
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea, and the claim is not patent eligible.
The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention including independent claims 31.
Furthermore, the dependent claims 22-30 and 32-40 do not resolve the issues raised in the independent claims.
The dependent claims 22-30 and 32-40 are directed towards:
using to determine an aggregate service request element by combining at least one of the one or more selectable service request option selections from each of the plurality of service requests; and validate the aggregate service request element against the one or more service request limitation elements; a service request status table including a commercial debt repayment column; a request for commercial debt increase; a service request status table including a commercial debt repayment column; an approved commercial debt increase selection column; the service request status table further includes a commercial debt acknowledgement and request submission column; and the one or more service request limitation elements is a company criteria and the processor is further configured to deny at least one of the plurality of service requests based on the company criteria.
These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 21, and are similarly rejected under same rationale.
Accordingly, the dependent claims 22-30 and 32-40 are rejected as ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. 101 based upon the same analysis.
The instant claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 in view of The Decision in Alice Corporation Ply. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. in a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court held that the patent claims in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. ("Alice Corp. ") are not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-20 [canceled], and 21-40 [new] are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Englehart et al (US 2016/0162988-A1), in view of Mousseau (US 2020/0349639-A1).
Claims (1–20) (Cancelled).
Ref Claim 21 (New), Englehart discloses a system comprising:
a memory storing a set of instructions, the memory including a database configured to store data including: a unique firm identifier associated with a partner company; one or more identifying information data elements associated with the partner company; one or more selectable service request options associated with the partner company; one or more service request limitation elements associated with the partner company; one or more portal preferences associated with the partner company; one or more service request discount options associated with the partner company; and one or more service request resolution preferences associated with the partner company; at least one processor configured to execute the instructions (para[0051-53], Fig.1) to:
receive, from an endpoint device, a plurality of service requests including: a request firm identifier, the request firm identifier being identical between each of the plurality of service requests; one or more selectable service request option selections chosen from the one or more selectable service request options associated with the partner company; one or more service request discount option selections chosen from the one or more service request discount options associated with the partner company; and one or more service request resolution preference selections chosen from the one or more service request resolution preferences associated with the partner company (para [0051-53], FIG. 1; via a system 100/computer devices 101, 102, 103, 104/a disclosed method 200. Each buyer 201, loan officer 202/processor 205, F. institution 203, interface 107 to store and communicate purchasing/financing data 204 user data, asset data and processing paperwork data Each computer device 101 may communicate in whole, or in part, via web-sites/network 104 [implied protected navigation location at sensitive network location of network 104]/include web-server…[0063], FIGs. 2A-2F; via illustrate a process flow via interactions between a buyer 201[as the customer] and the system 100; a GUI of the system 100 customer information [FIG.2B] and loan information stored within the system 100... );
[[authenticate the request firm identifier against the unique firm identifier to confirm that the plurality of service requests is associated with the partner company;]]
validate the one or more selectable service request option selections, the one or more service request discount option selections, and the one or more service request resolution preference selections against the one or more service request limitation elements associated with the partner company (para [0112],via a secure message panel display 800/…a confirmation screen display 809…Fig. 9C [implied validation]…);
determine whether the validation is denied; for each of the one or more selectable service request option selections for which the validation is denied: flag as rejected the one or more selectable service request option selections, if at least one of the one or more selectable service request option selections was not validated against the one or more service request limitation elements; flag as rejected the one or more service request discount option selections, if at least one of the one or more service request discount option selections was not validated against the one or more service request limitation elements; flag as rejected the one or more service request resolution preference selections, if at least one of the one or more service request resolution preference selections was not validated against the one or more service request limitation elements (para [0118]; via a notification [implied flagging]may be transmitted by the system 100 indicating if/when each document received by the system 100/approved/processed by a user…);
provide for display on a user interface associated with the endpoint device a notification including any selectable service request option selections, service request discount option selections, and resolution preference selections flagged as rejected; and provide for display on the user interface a request for revision to each of the plurality of service requests until none of the selectable service request option selections, service request discount option selections, or resolution preference selections is flagged as rejected (para [0008]; via The system/a processor…to generate account between a buyer and the system [0081]; the method 200 of home mortgage loans/ with the buyer's 201 account …[0125]; via the loan term and type segment 1002/display information, data amortization term, total loan amount… );
approve, in response to the validation, the plurality of service requests (para [0083]; the loan processor 205 may approve or deny the financing …the buyer 201/loan officer 202/broker 206 via the system 100…); and
provide for display on the user interface a notification advising of the approval (para [0031], FIGs. 10A-F, a document panel display a document status screen display, and an upload history screen display…[0049]; via A financial entity 203, providing financial services/transactions, such loans, deposits, withdrawal [0071]; via the system 100 with users and report to user and status of those activities…automatically…[0099]; via application received process step 600A/…A final approval screen display 606 in Fig. 7F…).
Englehart, does not explicitly disclose the step to authenticate the request firm identifier against the unique firm identifier to confirm that the plurality of service requests is associated with the partner company.
However, Mousseau being in the field of invention, discloses to authenticate the request firm identifier against the unique firm identifier to confirm that the plurality of service requests is associated with the partner company (para [0014], via a computer system to provide electronic financial services between service requester devices and service provider devices/…to authenticates to establish trust for data exchanges…[0073], via the method of offering digitally authenticated financial services…[0165]; via service request is in message format…[0489]; the digitally identity creation and validation module 716…for security…).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the features mentioned by Englehart to include the disclosures as taught by Mousseau to facilitate authentication between users and service providers.
Ref Claim 22 (New), Englehart discloses the system of claim 21, wherein the processor is further configured to: determine an aggregate service request element by combining at least one of the one or more selectable service request option selections from each of the plurality of service requests; and validate the aggregate service request element against the one or more service request limitation elements (para [0051-53, Fig.1; via a system 100/computer devices 101, 102, 103, 104/q disclosed method 200. Each buyer 201, loan officer/processor 205, F. institution 203…interface 107 to store and communicate purchasing/financing data 204…user data, asset data…).
Ref Claim 23 (New), Englehart discloses the system of claim 22, wherein the one or more service request limitation elements include a maximum debt level associated with the partner company and each of the at least one of the one or more selectable service request option selections from each of the plurality of service requests is a debt increase request value (para [0047]; FIGs.1-3; via the method 200 for managing secured debt…).
Ref Claim 24 (New), Englehart discloses the system of claim 22, wherein at least one of the plurality of service requests includes at least one collateral proposal and the processor is further configured to validate the collateral proposal against the one or more service request limitation elements (para [0047]; FIGs.1-3; via the method 200 for managing secured debt…).
Ref Claim 25 (New), Englehart discloses the system of claim 21, wherein the processor is further configured to provide for display on the user interface a plurality of interactive fields displaying each of the one or more selectable service request option selections, each of the one or more service request discount option selections, and each of the one or more service request resolution preference selections.
Ref Claim 26 (New), Englehart discloses the system of claim 21, wherein each of the plurality of service requests includes a request for commercial debt increase (para [0047]; FIGs.1-3; via the method 200 for managing secured debt…).
Ref Claim 27 (New), Englehart discloses the system of claim 26, wherein the processor is further configured to provide for display on the user interface a service request status table including a commercial debt repayment column (para [0047]; FIGs.1-3; via the method 200 for managing secured debt…).
Ref Claim 28 (New), Englehart discloses the system of claim 27, wherein the service request status table further includes an approved commercial debt increase selection column (para [0097[, FIGs 7A-F, screen displays/managing debt associated with financing an asset…).
Ref Claim 29 (New), Englehart discloses the system of claim 28, wherein the service request status table further includes a commercial debt acknowledgement and request submission column (para [0097[, FIGs 7A-F, screen displays/managing debt associated with financing an asset…).
Ref Claim 30 (New), Englehart discloses the system of claim 21, wherein at least one of the one or more service request limitation elements is a company criteria and the processor is further configured to deny at least one of the plurality of service requests based on the company criteria. (para [0097[, FIGs 7A-F, screen displays/managing debt associated with financing an asset…).
Claim 31 recites similar limitations to claim 21 and thus rejected using the same art and rationale in the rejection of claim 1 as set forth above.
Claims 32-40 are rejected as per the reasons set forth in claims 22-30 respectively.
CONCLUSION
The prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nacht (US 7478064 B1) discloses System And Process For Applying For And Obtaining Universal Multiple Mortgage Underwriting Approvals.
Cella et al (US 20220366494 A1) discloses Market Orchestration System for Facilitating Electronic Market place Transactions.
Greco (US 2003/0139990 A1) discloses Method, Apparatus and System for Control and Assessment of Risk in Commercial Transactions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HATEM M. ALI whose telephone number is (571) 270-3021, E-mail: Hatem.Ali@USPTO.Gov and FAX (571)270-4021. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ABHISHEK VYAS can be reached on (571) 270-1836. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HATEM M ALI/
Examiner, Art Unit 3691