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 August 4, 2026.
Claim(s) 1-27 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made Final.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argued that Examiner’s 101 rejection should be withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment of the claims. Examiner disagrees. Applicant’s amended claims are not patent eligible because they are directed to an abstract idea, and the additional limitations that accompany the abstract idea, when considered both individually and as a combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, Examiner finds Applicant’s argument non-persuasive.
Applicant argued that Examiner’s 103 rejection should be withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment of the claims. Examiner agrees. In light of Applicant’s amendment of the claims, the prior art does not disclose, teach, or suggest the claimed invention. Therefore, Examiner withdraws the rejection of claims 1-27 under 35 USC 103.
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:]
receiving contact data associated with a user [via a web page generated by a web server];
constructing an initial API request by transforming the contact data into a particular data structure associated with one or more API protocols, the particular data structure excluding supplemental personally-identifiable information (PII) of the user;
transmitting the initial API request;
receiving a preapproval application-programming interface (API) response that includes an HTML approval code and a set of preapproved revolving accounts, wherein the set of preapproved revolving accounts are determined based on a pre-qualification inquiry performed on the contact data;
receiving a selection of a revolving account from the set of preapproved revolving accounts, wherein the selection is associated with a user interaction with [a graphical user-interface element] associated with the revolving account;
constructing an activation API request for activating the selected revolving account, wherein the activation API request includes the supplemental PII, and wherein the construction of the activation API request is automatically triggered after the user interaction;
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, web page, and web 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, web page, and a web 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 when the initial API request is received at a particular time point, [the resource server] dynamically generates in real-time the preapproval API response while receiving other API requests at different time points, and wherein the preapproval API response for the particular time point includes the set of preapproved revolving accounts that are different from API responses generated for the other API requests.
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.
Examiner’s Statement of Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter. In light of Applicant's remarks, Examiner agrees that the cited reference(s) of Mehrhoff (US 2024/0267370) and Talbert (US 2004/0078328) do not disclose, teach, or suggest the claimed invention. Mehrhoff teaches a network based data exchange for qualifying a user and activating access credentials. Talbert teaches a method and system for completing a transaction between a customer and a merchant. However, the prior art of record fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention. Specifically, the prior art of record fails to anticipate or render obvious limitations for “constructing an initial API request by transforming the contact data into a particular data structure associated with one or more API protocols, the particular data structure excluding supplemental personally-identifiable information (PII),” and “constructing an activation API request for activating the selected revolving account, wherein the activation API request includes the supplemental PII, and wherein the construction of the activation API request is automatically triggered after the user interaction,” as described by the allowed claims.
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.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event of 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 mailing date of this final action.
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 12:00 pm - 8:00 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 W 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 3693
September 11, 2026
/ELIZABETH H ROSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights