DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The Information disclosure Statement(s) filed 12/05/2024; 2/20/2025; 6/13/2025 have been considered. Initialed copies of the Form 1449 are enclosed herewith.
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.
3. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more. Using the language in claim(s) 1 to illustrate, the limitations of receiving, by a verification service and from a first user, an application; sending, by the verification service and in response to receiving the application, a first prompt to the first user to authorize access to financial information by an open banking system; receiving, by the verification service and from the open banking system, the financial information associated with the first user, the financial information including at least income information associated with the first user; determining, by the verification service and a machine-learning component of the verification service configured to evaluate one or more factors associated with a reliability of an income, an income score associated with the first user based at least in part on the financial information; determining, by the verification service, a threshold income score; determining, by the verification service, that the income score satisfies the threshold income score; and sending, by the verification service and to a second user, a first recommendation to approve the application based at least in part on determining that the income score is equal to or greater than the threshold income score, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity, in particular, fundamental economic practices, but for the recitation of generic computer components. The claims as a whole recite a method of organizing human activity.
The claimed invention allows for techniques for verifying information associated with an applicant and providing a recommendation regarding approval of an application associated with a rental agreement or a loan which is a fundamental economic principle or practice (which includes hedging, insurance and mitigating risk).
The mere nominal recitation of an open banking system and a machine learning component do not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, under Eligibility Step 2A, prong one, (MPEP §2106.04(a)), the claims recite an abstract idea.
Under Eligibility Step 2A, prong two, (MPEP §2106.04(d)), this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the additional elements— an open banking system and a machine learning component, a system comprising one or processors and computer readable media. The an open banking system and a machine learning component, a system comprising one or processors and computer readable media are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer functions of receiving an application, sending a first prompt, receiving financial information, determining an income score, determining a threshold income score, deterring that income score satisfies threshold, sending a recommendation to approve the application) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (see MPEP §2106.05(f)). 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.
Although a machine learning model is used, such use is generic. The object of the claim limitation using machine learning component is to evaluate one or more factors associated with a reliability of an income, not to produce technology enabling a machine learning model to operate. The claims call for generic use of such a model in the manner such models customarily operate. Simply reciting a particular technological module or piece of equipment in a claim does not confer eligibility.
Similar arguments can be extended to independent claims 11 and 17 and hence claims 11 and 17 are rejected on similar grounds as claim 1. In addition, claim 11 recites a system comprising one or more processors and one or more computer-readable media storing instructions executable by the processor and claim 17 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium that amount to generic computer implementation.
The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Under Eligibility Step 2B, (MPEP §2106.05), the claim(s) does/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 an open banking system and a machine learning component, a system comprising one or processors and computer readable media storing instructions to be executed by the processor to perform claimed functions, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims have been given the full two part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination 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(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. Dependent claims 2-10, 12-16, 18-20 simply help to define the abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Viewing the claim limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the claim 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. Accordingly, claim(s) 1-20 is/are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
4. Claim(s) 1-3, 7-8, 11, 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (US 2019/0066203) in view of Bradley et al. (US 11,244,386).
Re-claim 1: Smith discloses:
receiving, by a verification service and from a first user, an application ( loan or application of a borrower [0058]);
sending, by the verification service and in response to receiving the application, a first prompt to the first user to authorize access to financial information by an open banking system (user authorizes financial institution to provide financial data to income verification server- [0012]-[0013], [0028], [0032]; Fig. 3 shows two financial institutions and one payroll provider being connected to the network, and [0054] discloses that any number or financial institutions and any number of payroll providers communicate via the network that can provide information about accounts and transactions to the income verification server [i.e., open banking system]).
receiving, by the verification service and from the open banking system, the financial information associated with the first user, the financial information including at least income information associated with the first user (income verification server establishes a financial institution (FI) communicative connection with the FI server receiving the direct deposit of payroll, and financial account information and uses payroll provider information [0032]; discloses that any number or financial institutions and any number of payroll providers communicate via the network that can provide information about accounts and transactions to the income verification server [i.e., open banking system] -[0054]; see also Fig. 3, [0038]).
receiving information from financial institution (Fig. 3 items 54, 56 and [0032]);
Smith fails to disclose:
determining, by the verification service and a machine-learning component of the verification service configured to evaluate one or more factors associated with a reliability of an income, an income score associated with the first user based at least in part on the financial information;
determining, by the verification service, a threshold income score;
determining, by the verification service, that the income score satisfies the threshold income score;
and sending, by the verification service and to a second user, a first recommendation to approve the application based at least in part on determining that the income score is equal to or greater than the threshold income score.
Bradley however teaches a system for income scoring including using neural networks in evaluating factors such as historical information including property info, borrower info, loan and income info, credit info, and demographic info associated with the borrower to determine an income score-see Col. 13 L33-49 and col. 12 L 40-60; determining a threshold income score and determining that income score satisfies the threshold income score -fig. 10 and col. 12 L 28-39 and Col. 18 lines 13-24); income verification processor provides an income score to the lender with recommendation to approve.-col 6 L 40- Col. 7 L 24 Table 1.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Smith to include using a neural network to evaluate factors associated the assessment in the reliability of stated income, determine an income score, compare income score to a threshold, and recommend actions including approving an application based on the income score being within a recommended threshold as taught by Bradley in order to provide a system that verifies income and provides a lender with an indication if stated income is accurate or faulty.
Re-claim 2. Smith discloses wherein the application is associated with a rental agreement or a loan -see [0053].
Re-claim 3. Smith discloses sending, by the verification service and to the first user, a second prompt to provide identification associated with the first user; receiving, by the verification service and from the first user, identification information associated with the first user; determining, by the verification service, an identity associated with the first user based at least in part on the identification information; verifying, by the verification service, the identity of the first user by comparing the identification information with at least a portion of the financial information; and sending, by the verification service and to the second user, an indication that the identity of the first user is verified. (The authorization request may include a request for information identifying a payroll provider of the consumer, a request for user identification and password information to permit the income-verification server to connect to a payroll provider account associated with the consumer, and a request for authorization to use the user identification and password information to access the payroll provider account.-[0008]-[0009]).
Re-claim 7. Bradley, not Smith, discloses receiving, by the verification service and from the second user, input indicating an approval rate, wherein the verification service determines the threshold income score based at least in part on an average income for a region associated with the application. (computing platform determines an average income based on occupation in a particular region col. 9 L41-53).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include in the income verification system of Smith the ability to determine incorporate regional income estimates when determining threshold income scores as taught by Bradley since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Re-claim 8. Smith discloses:
sending, by the verification service and to the first user, a third prompt to provide employment information associated with the first user (payroll provider account information-[0008]);
receiving, by the verification service, the employment information from the first user or from an employer associated with the first user, the employment information including a start date of employment for the first user and paystubs associated with the first user (paystubs of the consumer and payroll information during a plurality of pay periods-[0011] see also [0015], verify employment [0017]);
and verifying, by the verification service, employment of the first user by comparing the employment information with at least a portion of the financial information (verify employment [0017]);
and determining, by the verification service, an employment history and a pay consistency associated with the first user, wherein determining the income score is based on at least one of verifying the employment of the first user, the employment history, or the pay consistency associated with the first user-see payroll and employment information received by the income verification system -(Use payroll information of the consumer to establish or verify income of that consumer-[0009]; see also [0011-0017], [0029]-[0033]).
Claim 11 has similar limitations found in claim 1 above, and therefore is rejected by the same art and rationale.
Claim 17 has similar limitations found in claim 1 above, and therefore is rejected by the same art and rationale.
Claim 18 has similar limitations found in claim 3 above, and therefore is rejected by the same art and rationale.
5. Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Bradley and further in view of LeRoux (US 2021/0073909).
Re-claim 4. Smith fails to disclose wherein the financial information further includes expense information associated with the first user and the method further comprises: determining, by the verification service, an expense score associated with the first user based at least in part on the financial information; determining, by the verification service, a first threshold expense score; and determining, by the verification service, that the expense score is equal to or greater than the first threshold expense score, wherein sending the first recommendation to approve the first user for the application is further based at least in part on determining that the expense score is equal to or greater than the first threshold expense score.
LeRoux however, teaches a system and method for providing financial information regarding bank account and other financial information about a user such as those users seeking credit, the information including an expense score associated with the user, determining a threshold expense score, comparing threshold score with user expense score and providing a recommendation to the financial institution.-see [0087],[0122], [0149], the system has the ability to share the financial health score to third parties such as mortgage lenders in regard to an individual’s financial reliability–[0143], [0145], spending stability factor-[0142]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Smith to include determining an expense score for a user, comparing expense score to a threshold, and determining a financial health score to be transmitted to financial institutions such as lenders as taught by LeRoux in order to provide services to financial institutions to aid in lending decisions.
Re-claim 5. Bradley, not Smith, discloses:
determining, by the verification service, one or more financial factors associated with the financial information (a system for income scoring including using neural networks in evaluating factors such as historical information including property info, borrower info, loan and income info, credit info, and demographic info associated with the borrower to determine an income score-see Col. 13 L33-49);
generating a training data set for a machine learning algorithm, the training data set including the one or more financial factors (to determine income score model, historical financial information is received and processed on quantitative techniques using neural networks [ML]-col. 12 L59-67; evaluating factors such as historical information including property info, borrower info, loan and income info, credit info, and demographic info associated with the borrower to determine an income score-see Col. 13 L33-49 and col. 12 L 40-60);
determining, by the verification service, one or more weighting factors for the one or more financial factors, the one or more weighting factors representing a relative impact that individual income factors have on an income or an expenditure associated with the first user (“To determine the Income Score (step 6300 of FIG. 6), the computing platform 5300 may determine the Income Score by multiplying the variables initialized in step 6200 by its corresponding coefficients (or weights) from the Income Score model.”-Col. 11 L57-65);
and training a machine learning model using the training data set, the machine learning model configured to determine the income score indicating the reliability of the income associated with the first user or the expense score indicating a financial impact of the expenditure associated with the first user.- see col. 11, L 57 to col. 12 L 13.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include in the system for verification of income of Smith the ability to train a data set for a machine learning algorithm the data set including financial factors and determining weighting factors relative to individual income factors and determine the income score as taught by Bradley since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2009/0099959 (Liao et al.)-cited for determining income stability using machine learning and weighted factors in mortgage application processing.
US 2016/0086263 (Weinflash et al.)- cited for income verification.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELDA MILEF whose telephone number is (571)272-8124. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30am-3:30pm; Friday 7am-12pm.
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.
/ELDA G MILEF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694
Prosecution Insights