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
This action is in reply to the application filed on December 10, 2024.
Claim(s) 1-27 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made Non-Final.
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.
Claim(s) 1-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1-27 are directed to a system, method, or product, which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified independent system claim 10 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent method Claim 1 and product Claim 19. Claim 10 recites the following limitations:
[one or more processors; and]
[memory storing thereon instructions that, as a result of being executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to perform operations comprising: to]
identify a set of preapproved revolving accounts, wherein the set of preapproved revolving accounts are determined based on a pre-qualification inquiry performed on contact data associated with a user;
receiving a selection of a revolving account from the set of preapproved revolving accounts;
constructing an activation API request for activating the selected revolving account, wherein the activation API request includes supplemental personally-identifiable information (PII) associated with the user;
transmitting the activation API request, wherein when the activation API request is received, [a resource server] dynamically generates in real-time an approval API response to the activation API request, wherein the approval API response includes an indication that the user is approved for the selected revolving account, and wherein the indication is determined based on a formal qualification inquiry performed on the supplemental PII;
parsing the approval API response to identify the indication that the user is approved for the selected revolving account; and
generating a notification that the selected revolving account has been activated according to revolving-account parameters associated with the selected revolving account.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity because the limitations recite fundamental economic principles or practices. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic principle or practice, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The one or more processors, memory, and resource server in Claim 10 are just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. Claim(s) 1 and 19 are also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of one or more processors, memory, and a resource server. The computer hardware/software is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, claim(s) 1, 10, and 19 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, these additional elements do not change the outcome of the analysis when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Thus, claim(s) 1, 10, and 19 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims
Claim 11 recites the following limitations:
The system of claim 10, wherein receiving the preapproval API response includes: transmitting the contact data associated with the user, wherein when [a data aggregation server] receives the contact data, the [data aggregation server] performs the pre-qualification inquiry.
Dependent claim 11 recites a data aggregation server. The data aggregation server does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, dependent claim 11 is directed to an abstract idea. Claim(s) 2 and 20 are also abstract for similar reasons.
Claim 12 recites the following limitations:
The system of claim 10, wherein the set of preapproved revolving accounts are determined by applying [a machine-learning model] to the contact data, wherein [the machine-learning model] generates candidate revolving-account parameters associated with the set of preapproved revolving accounts.
Dependent claim 12 recites a machine-learning model. The machine-learning model does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, dependent claim 12 is directed to an abstract idea. Claim(s) 3 and 21 are also abstract for similar reasons.
Claim 13 recites the following limitations:
The system of claim 10, wherein generating the approval API response includes: transmitting the supplemental PII associated with the user, wherein when [a data aggregation server] receives the supplemental PII, [the data aggregation server] performs the formal qualification inquiry.
Dependent claim 13 recites a data aggregation server. The data aggregation server does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, dependent claim 13 is directed to an abstract idea. Claim(s) 4 and 22 are also abstract for similar reasons.
Claim 14 recites the following limitations:
The system of claim 10, wherein a preapproved revolving account of the set of preapproved revolving accounts includes revolving-account parameters identifying a line of credit and an interest rate associated with the preapproved revolving account.
Dependent claim 14 further defines the abstract idea that is present in independent claim 10 and thus corresponds to certain methods of organizing human activity and hence is abstract for the reasons presented above. Dependent claim 14 does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, dependent claim 14 is directed to an abstract idea. Claim(s) 5 and 23 are also abstract for similar reasons.
Claim 15 recites the following limitations:
The system of claim 10, wherein the contact data includes name, mailing address, phone number, and email address of the user.
Dependent claim 15 further defines the abstract idea that is present in independent claim 10 and thus corresponds to certain methods of organizing human activity and hence is abstract for the reasons presented above. Dependent claim 15 does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, dependent claim 15 is directed to an abstract idea. Claim(s) 6 and 24 are also abstract for similar reasons.
Claim 16 recites the following limitations:
The system of claim 10, wherein the contact data includes membership information of the user, wherein the membership information is associated with a particular service provider.
Dependent claim 16 further defines the abstract idea that is present in independent claim 10 and thus corresponds to certain methods of organizing human activity and hence is abstract for the reasons presented above. Dependent claim 16 does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, dependent claim 16 is directed to an abstract idea. Claim(s) 7 and 25 are also abstract for similar reasons.
Claim 17 recites the following limitations:
The system of claim 10, wherein the supplemental PII includes date of birth and social security number associated with the user.
Dependent claim 17 further defines the abstract idea that is present in independent claim 10 and thus corresponds to certain methods of organizing human activity and hence is abstract for the reasons presented above. Dependent claim 17 does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, dependent claim 17 is directed to an abstract idea. Claim(s) 8 and 26 are also abstract for similar reasons.
Claim 18 recites the following limitations:
The system of claim 10, wherein receiving the preapproval API response further includes: receiving the contact data associated with the user; constructing an initial API request, wherein the initial API request includes the contact data; and transmitting the initial API request, wherein when the initial API request is received, [the resource server] dynamically generates in real-time the preapproval API response, and wherein the preapproval API response includes the set of preapproved revolving accounts.
Dependent claim 18 further defines the abstract idea that is present in independent claim 10 and thus corresponds to certain methods of organizing human activity and hence is abstract for the reasons presented above. Dependent claim 18 does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, dependent claim 18 is directed to an abstract idea. Claim(s) 9 and 27 are also abstract for similar reasons.
Independent claim(s) 1, 10, and 19 are not patent eligible. Dependent claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20-27 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, claim(s) 1-27 are not patent-eligible.
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.
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.
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 1-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mehrhoff (US 2024/0267370) in view of Talbert (US 2004/0078328).
Regarding claim(s) 1, 10, and 19:
Mehrhoff teaches:
one or more processors; and (Mehrhoff: pgh 5, “…at least one processor in communication with the at least one memory is described.”)
memory storing thereon instructions that, as a result of being executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to perform operations comprising: to (Mehrhoff: pgh 5, “In one aspect, a computing system including at least one memory with instructions stored thereon…”)
identify a set of preapproved revolving accounts, wherein the set of preapproved revolving accounts are determined based on a pre-qualification inquiry performed on contact data associated with a user; (Mehrhoff: pgh 21, “In some embodiments, a credit decision may be to pre-approve customers for payment account offers.”; pgh 42, “As used herein, the term ‘payment account’ may refer to any suitable payment account, such as an account associated with a payment card, a credit card, a debit card, a prepaid card…”)
receiving a selection of a revolving account from the set of preapproved revolving accounts; (Mehrhoff: pgh 19, “The customer can select an enroll button displayed on an interface which triggers instant digital issuance of the payment account by the issuing bank so that the consumer can immediately utilize the payment account…”)
constructing an activation API request for activating the selected revolving account… (Mehrhoff: pgh 72, “System then transmits at least a portion of applicant data and data pulled from the user bank to issuer platform (e.g., via an API…”)
transmitting the activation API request, wherein when the activation API request is received, a resource server dynamically generates in real-time an approval API response to the activation API request, wherein the approval API response includes an indication that the user is approved for the selected revolving account, and wherein the indication is determined based on a formal qualification inquiry performed on the supplemental PII; (Mehrhoff: pgh 72, “Further, data management system transmits a second portion of applicant data to AC computing device (e.g., via an API) in order for AC computing device to identify which, if any, payment account offer to present to the user.”; pgh 74, “…the payment account can be immediately/instantly used by the user in real-time and/or near real-time.”)
parsing the approval API response to identify the indication that the user is approved for the selected revolving account; and (Mehrhoff: pgh 63, “…upon completion of loan approval…and determination of one or more payment accounts the user is qualified for, as explained herein in further detail, interface 308 may be displayed.”)
generating a notification that the selected revolving account has been activated according to revolving-account parameters associated with the selected revolving account. (Mehrhoff: pgh 63, “Accordingly, the user is made aware not only of the outcome of the loan application process in first display area, but additionally of any payment accounts that can be automatically created in display area…”)
Mehrhoff does not teach, however, Talbert teaches:
…wherein the activation API request includes supplemental personally-identifiable information (PII) associated with the user; (Talbert: pgh 14, “It is another object of the present invention to provide a method and system that positively authenticates a customer’s request for every transaction using private credentials and validations, and which uses additional data, e.g., IP address, bill-to address, ship-to address, telephone number, personal security answers, date of birth, social security number, etc.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Mehrhoff to include the teachings of Talbert in order to provide essential data used in loan underwriting and improve transaction security (Talbert: pgh 5).
Regarding claim(s) 2, 11, and 20:
The combination of Mehrhoff/Talbert, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 1, 10, and 19, respectively. Mehrhoff further teaches:
wherein receiving the preapproval API response includes: transmitting the contact data associated with the user, wherein when a data aggregation server receives the contact data, the data aggregation server performs the pre-qualification inquiry. (Mehrhoff: pgh 47, “For example, user data may be transmitted from device to platform in order for a loan approval or denial decision to be made at platform.”)
Regarding claim(s) 3, 12, and 21:
The combination of Mehrhoff/Talbert, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 1, 10, and 19, respectively. Mehrhoff further teaches:
wherein the set of preapproved revolving accounts are determined by applying a machine-learning model to the contact data, wherein the machine-learning model generates candidate revolving-account parameters associated with the set of preapproved revolving accounts. (Mehrhoff: pgh 67, “In some embodiments, machine learning and/or artificial intelligence techniques may be utilized to determine/identify which payment account offers to present to a user and in which order.”)
Regarding claim(s) 4, 13, and 22:
The combination of Mehrhoff/Talbert, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 1, 10, and 19, respectively. Mehrhoff further teaches:
wherein generating the approval API response includes: transmitting the supplemental PII associated with the user, wherein when a data aggregation server receives the supplemental PII, the data aggregation server performs the formal qualification inquiry. (Mehrhoff: pgh 67, “In some embodiments, machine learning and/or artificial intelligence techniques may be utilized to determine/identify which payment account offers to present to a user and in which order.”)
Regarding claim(s) 5, 14, and 23:
The combination of Mehrhoff/Talbert, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 1, 10, and 19, respectively. Mehrhoff further teaches:
wherein a preapproved revolving account of the set of preapproved revolving accounts includes revolving-account parameters identifying a line of credit and an interest rate associated with the preapproved revolving account. (Mehrhoff: pgh 24, “If the loan offer is approved through the AC system (e.g., the loan originator agrees to loan an amount of money to the user for a predetermine term and rates…”; “pgh 67, “…details regarding payment accounts associated with selectors…may be displayed so that the user may make a more informed decision (e.g., interest rate, benefits such a point multipliers…”)
Regarding claim(s) 6, 15, and 24:
The combination of Mehrhoff/Talbert, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 1, 10, and 19, respectively. Talbert further teaches:
wherein the contact data includes name, mailing address, phone number, and email address of the user. (Talbert: pgh 76, “The present invention provides for using the customer data, such as the customer’s name, address, phone number…”; pgh 32, “For example, the merchant may collect and transmit the information or data fields listed in Table 1…to the transaction system.” (See customer e-mail address in Table 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Mehrhoff to include the teachings of Talbert in order to provide essential data used in loan underwriting and improve transaction security (Talbert: pgh 5).
Regarding claim(s) 7, 16, and 25:
The combination of Mehrhoff/Talbert, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 1, 10, and 19, respectively. Mehrhoff further teaches:
wherein the contact data includes membership information of the user, wherein the membership information is associated with a particular service provider. (Mehrhoff: pgh 42, “As used herein, the term “payment account” may refer to…a membership card…or any other payment device that may hold payment account information…”)
Regarding claim(s) 8, 17, and 26:
The combination of Mehrhoff/Talbert, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 1, 10, and 19, respectively. Talbert further teaches:
wherein the supplemental PII includes date of birth and social security number associated with the user. (Talbert: pgh 14, “It is another object of the present invention to provide a method and system that positively authenticates a customer’s request for every transaction using private credentials and validations, and which uses additional data, e.g., IP address, bill-to address, ship-to address, telephone number, personal security answers, date of birth, social security number, etc.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Mehrhoff to include the teachings of Talbert in order to provide essential data used in loan underwriting and improve transaction security (Talbert: pgh 5).
Regarding claim(s) 9, 18, and 27:
The combination of Mehrhoff/Talbert, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 1, 10, and 19, respectively. Mehrhoff further teaches:
wherein receiving the preapproval API response further includes: receiving the contact data associated with the user; (Mehrhoff: pgh 71, “For example, application data and other data regarding the user known by merchant platform may be compiled into applicant data.”)
constructing an initial API request, wherein the initial API request includes the contact data; and (Mehrhoff: pgh 72, “System then transmits at least a portion of applicant data and data pulled from the user bank to issuer platform (e.g., via an API…”)
transmitting the initial API request, wherein when the initial API request is received, the resource server dynamically generates in real-time the preapproval API response, and wherein the preapproval API response includes the set of preapproved revolving accounts. (Mehrhoff: pgh 72, “Further, data management system transmits a second portion of applicant data to AC computing device (e.g., via an API) in order for AC computing device to identify which, if any, payment account offer to present to the user.”; pgh 74, “…the payment account can be immediately/instantly used by the user in real-time and/or near real-time.”)
Conclusion
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. Goteti (US 11,983,768) discloses automated loan production systems, methods, and media.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN O PRESTON whose telephone number is (571)270-3918. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, MICHAEL ANDERSON can be reached on 571-270-0508. 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.
/JOHN O PRESTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3698
March 19, 2026
/Mike Anderson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights