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 1/16/2025, wherein:
Claims 1-26 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Objections
Claims 14-26 are objected to because of the following minor informalities:
Claims 14 recites “A method comprising: obtaining, by aggregating multiple data streams of an event streaming system, financial status data indicative of balances and transactions associated with financial accounts of a customer of a financial institution; determining, based on the obtained financial status data, a financial position indicative of a consolidation of the financial status data for the customer of the financial institution; and providing a user interface indicative of the financial position of the customer”. However, it is not clear from the claim that the steps of the method are performed by a computer. The specification indicates the claimed methods are performed by compute device 120. Since a computer/processor is not explicitly stated in the body of the claim, the Applicant should amend the claim to recite a processor if they intend the method to be performed by a computer. For purposes of examination the claimed method will be interpreted as being performed by a computer.
Claims 15-26 are objected to pursuant to their dependency on claim 1.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a device and method for determining a financial position which is considered a judicial exception because it falls under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity such as commercial or legal interactions, including contracts, marketing, sales activities, or behaviors. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application as discussed below and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as discussed below.
This rejection follows the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed Reg 4, January 7, 2019, pp. 50-57 (“2019 PEG”)(MPEP 2106).
Analysis
Step 1 (Statutory Categories) – 2019 PEG pg. 53 (See MPEP 2106.03)
Claims 1-20 are directed to the statutory category of a process, machine, or manufacture.
Step 2A, Prong 1 (Do the claims recite an abstract idea?) – 2019 PEG pg. 54 (See MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c))
For independent claims 1 and 14, the claims recite an abstract idea of: determining a financial position. The steps of independent claim 1 recite the abstract idea (in bold below) of: A compute device comprising; circuitry configured to: obtain, by aggregating multiple data streams of an event streaming system, financial status data indicative of balances and transactions associated with financial accounts of a customer of a financial institution; determine, based on the obtained financial status data, a financial position indicative of a consolidation of the financial status data for the customer of the financial institution; and provide a user interface indicative of the financial position of the customer. Independent claim 14 recites similar steps that recite the abstract idea. Independent claims 1 and 14, as drafted, are a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, since they recite commercial or legal interactions, including contracts, marketing, sales activities, or behaviors. If the claim limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of additional elements including generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Other than reciting the abstract idea, the independent claims recite additional elements including generic computer components such as “a compute device comprising circuitry, an event streaming system, and a user interface”, and nothing in the claims precludes the steps from being performed as a method of organizing human activity. Accordingly, the independent claims recite an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-13, and 15-20 recite similar limitations as claims 1, and 14; and when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101 because the additional recited limitations only refine the abstract idea further. Other than reciting the abstract idea, the dependent claims recite similar additional elements including generic computer components as the independent claims, such as “the compute device, the circuitry, and a user interface”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial or legal interactions, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Step 2A, Prong 2 (Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?) – 2019 PEG pg. 54 (See MPEP 2106.04(d)-(c))
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, independent claims 1, and 14 only recite the additional elements of “a compute device comprising circuitry, an event streaming system, and a user interface”. A plain reading of the Figures and associated descriptions in the specification reveals that generic processors may be used to execute the claimed steps. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and limits the judicial exception to a particular environment (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and limiting the judicial exception to a particular environment doesn’t integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Hence, independent claims 1, and 14 are directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-13, and 15-26, recite similar additional elements as the independent claims including generic computer components, such as “the compute device, the circuitry, and a user interface”. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements in the dependent claims are also recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to more no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they also do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Also, the claims do not affect an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement of the functioning of a computer system itself; the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?) – 2019 PEG pg. 56 (See MPEP 2106.05)
Independent claims 1 and 14 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 recited additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and limits the judicial exception to the particular environment of computers (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). The additional elements of the instant underlying process, when taken in combination, together do not offer substantially more than the sum of the function of the elements when each is taken alone. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
In addition, the dependent claims 2-13, and 15-26 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 the dependent claims to perform the claimed limitations, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Similar to the independent claims, mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Also, for the same reasoning as the independent claims, the additional elements of the limitations of the dependent claims, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, together do not offer significantly more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone and the dependent claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. For these reasons, the dependent claims also are not patent eligible.
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 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.
Claims 1-4, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0278185 to Veal IV (hereinafter referred to as Veal), in view of US 2023/0041581 to Nitsopoulos (hereinafter referred to as Nitsopoulos).
In regards to claim 1, Veal discloses a compute device comprising: circuitry (computer comprising processor executing instructions in memory, para. 0009) configured to: obtain (user initiating a request for transactions from a person's banking institution, para. 0023; receiving transaction data corresponding to banking transactions associated with the customer, para. 0011), by aggregating multiple data streams of an event streaming system (compilation of data from all banking transactions including but not limited to, deposits, withdrawals, credit and debit card transactions, wire transfers, online bill payments, mortgage loans and small business loans, para. 0014), financial status data (determining credit worthiness using information obtained from banking transactions that is available in real time, para. 0013) indicative of balances and transactions associated with financial accounts of a customer of a financial institution (information including, but not limited to deposit amounts, deposit dates, deposit transaction name, matching bill payments, bill payment amounts, bill payment dates, the name on the account, nsf amounts, count of nsf's, savings account balance, and the like, para. 0026); determine, based on the obtained financial status data (elements run individually to take the raw data of all bank transactions and remove unnecessary data to then run calculations on the remaining data after which the calculation data is used to create a credit profile which can then be scored against a weighted model of a perfect score to determine credit worthiness for that individual set of data, para. 0029), a financial position indicative of a consolidation of the financial status data (system runs the algorithms to summarize information that has been acquired and compiled to summarize income and spending habits and identify credit worthiness in relation to total baseline of users, para. 0027) for the customer of the financial institution (compilation of data from all banking transactions, including but not limited to, deposits, withdrawals, credit and debit card transactions, wire transfers, online bill payments, mortgage loans and small business loans, para. 0014, fig. 13); and provide a user interface indicative of the financial position of the customer (system completes the summary and a financial history is compiled into a report for viewing, para. 0028). However Veal fails to disclose an event streaming system; and provide a user interface.
Nitsopoulos, in the related field of streaming transaction data, teaches an event streaming system (event store may be configured to store the transaction event data in a storage system and a streaming processor streams the transactional event data to a subscriber, para. 0007); and provide a user interface (channel application 100 may include a graphical user interface (GUI) configured to enable and allow a user to view information about banking, para. 0071). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the system of Veal with the ability to stream transaction data and present the data on a user interface as taught by the system of Nitsopoulos. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide an improved system and method for processing digital experience information (Nitsopoulos, para. 0005).
In regards to claim 2, modified Veal discloses the compute device of claim 1, and further discloses wherein to obtain (user initiating a request for transactions from a person's banking institution, para. 0023; receiving transaction data corresponding to banking transactions associated with the customer, para. 0011) financial status data (determining credit worthiness using information obtained from banking transactions that is available in real time, para. 0013) comprises to aggregate data streams indicative of deposits, withdrawals, and balances associated with one or more of the financial accounts of the customer (information including, but not limited to deposit amounts, deposit dates, deposit transaction name, matching bill payments, bill payment amounts, bill payment dates, the name on the account, nsf amounts, count of nsf's, savings account balance, and the like, para. 0026).
In regards to claim 3, modified Veal discloses the compute device of claim 2, and further discloses wherein to obtain (user initiating a request for transactions from a person's banking institution, para. 0023; receiving transaction data corresponding to banking transactions associated with the customer, para. 0011) financial status data (determining credit worthiness using information obtained from banking transactions that is available in real time, para. 0013) comprises to aggregate data streams pertaining one or more of: (i) one or more deposit accounts of the customer (information including, but not limited to deposit amounts, deposit dates, deposit transaction name, matching bill payments, bill payment amounts, bill payment dates, the name on the account, nsf amounts, count of nsf's, savings account balance, and the like, para. 0026); (ii) one or more checking accounts or savings accounts of the customer; (iii) one or more investment accounts of the customer; (iv) one or more certificates of deposit or retirement accounts of the customer; (v) one or more lending products of the financial institution; and/or (for examination purposes “and/or” has been interpreted as “or”) (vi) one or more credit products of the financial institution.
In regards to claim 4, modified Veal discloses the compute device of claim 1, and further discloses wherein to obtain (user initiating a request for transactions from a person's banking institution, para. 0023; receiving transaction data corresponding to banking transactions associated with the customer, para. 0011) financial status data (determining credit worthiness using information obtained from banking transactions that is available in real time, para. 0013) comprises to aggregate data streams (compilation of data from all banking transactions including but not limited to, deposits, withdrawals, credit and debit card transactions, wire transfers, online bill payments, mortgage loans and small business loans, para. 0014), but fails to disclose streams associated with banking industry architecture network codes.
Nitsopoulos, in the related field of streaming transaction data, teaches streams (event store may be configured to store the transaction event data in a storage system and a streaming processor streams the transactional event data to a subscriber, para. 0007) associated with banking industry architecture network codes (transactional event data is transformed, by the translator into the common data scheme such as BIAN (Banking Industry Architecture Network), para. 0013). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the system of Veal with the ability to stream transaction data associated with banking industry architecture network codes as taught by the system of Nitsopoulos. The motivation for doing so would have been for the streaming processor to convert the common data scheme message into a BIAN compliant data scheme (Nitsopoulos, para. 0040).
In regards to claim 14, Veal discloses a method (computer comprising processor executing instructions in memory, para. 0009) comprising: obtaining (user initiating a request for transactions from a person's banking institution, para. 0023; receiving transaction data corresponding to banking transactions associated with the customer, para. 0011), by aggregating multiple data streams of a system (compilation of data from all banking transactions including but not limited to, deposits, withdrawals, credit and debit card transactions, wire transfers, online bill payments, mortgage loans and small business loans, para. 0014), financial status data (determining credit worthiness using information obtained from banking transactions that is available in real time, para. 0013) indicative of balances and transactions associated with financial accounts of a customer of a financial institution (information including, but not limited to deposit amounts, deposit dates, deposit transaction name, matching bill payments, bill payment amounts, bill payment dates, the name on the account, nsf amounts, count of nsf's, savings account balance, and the like, para. 0026); determining, based on the obtained financial status data (elements run individually to take the raw data of all bank transactions and remove unnecessary data to then run calculations on the remaining data after which the calculation data is used to create a credit profile which can then be scored against a weighted model of a perfect score to determine credit worthiness for that individual set of data, para. 0029), a financial position indicative of a consolidation of the financial status data (system runs the algorithms to summarize information that has been acquired and compiled to summarize income and spending habits and identify credit worthiness in relation to total baseline of users, para. 0027) for the customer of the financial institution (compilation of data from all banking transactions, including but not limited to, deposits, withdrawals, credit and debit card transactions, wire transfers, online bill payments, mortgage loans and small business loans, para. 0014, fig. 13); and providing indicative of the financial position of the customer (system completes the summary and a financial history is compiled into a report for viewing, para. 0028). However Veal fails to disclose an event streaming system; and provide a user interface.
Nitsopoulos, in the related field of streaming transaction data, teaches an event streaming system (event store may be configured to store the transaction event data in a storage system and a streaming processor streams the transactional event data to a subscriber, para. 0007); and providing a user interface (channel application 100 may include a graphical user interface (GUI) configured to enable and allow a user to view information about banking, para. 0071). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the system of Veal with the ability to stream transaction data and present the data on a user interface as taught by the system of Nitsopoulos. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide an improved system and method for processing digital experience information (Nitsopoulos, para. 0005).
In regards to claim 15, modified Veal discloses the method of claim 14, and further discloses wherein obtaining (user initiating a request for transactions from a person's banking institution, para. 0023; receiving transaction data corresponding to banking transactions associated with the customer, para. 0011) financial status data (determining credit worthiness using information obtained from banking transactions that is available in real time, para. 0013) comprises aggregating data streams indicative of deposits, withdrawals, and balances associated with one or more of the financial accounts of the customer (information including, but not limited to deposit amounts, deposit dates, deposit transaction name, matching bill payments, bill payment amounts, bill payment dates, the name on the account, nsf amounts, count of nsf's, savings account balance, and the like, para. 0026).
In regards to claim 16, modified Veal discloses the method of claim 14, and further discloses wherein obtaining (user initiating a request for transactions from a person's banking institution, para. 0023; receiving transaction data corresponding to banking transactions associated with the customer, para. 0011) financial status data (determining credit worthiness using information obtained from banking transactions that is available in real time, para. 0013) comprises aggregating data streams pertaining one or more of: (i) one or more deposit accounts of the customer (information including, but not limited to deposit amounts, deposit dates, deposit transaction name, matching bill payments, bill payment amounts, bill payment dates, the name on the account, nsf amounts, count of nsf's, savings account balance, and the like, para. 0026); (ii) one or more checking accounts or savings accounts of the customer; (iii) one or more investment accounts of the customer; (iv) one or more certificates of deposit or retirement accounts of the customer; (v) one or more lending products of the financial institution; and/or (for examination purposes “and/or” has been interpreted as “or”) (vi) one or more credit products of the financial institution.
In regards to claim 17, modified Veal discloses the method of claim 14, wherein obtaining (user initiating a request for transactions from a person's banking institution, para. 0023; receiving transaction data corresponding to banking transactions associated with the customer, para. 0011) financial status data (determining credit worthiness using information obtained from banking transactions that is available in real time, para. 0013) comprises aggregating data streams (compilation of data from all banking transactions including but not limited to, deposits, withdrawals, credit and debit card transactions, wire transfers, online bill payments, mortgage loans and small business loans, para. 0014), but fails to disclose streams associated with banking industry architecture network codes.
Nitsopoulos, in the related field of streaming transaction data, teaches streams (event store may be configured to store the transaction event data in a storage system and a streaming processor streams the transactional event data to a subscriber, para. 0007) associated with banking industry architecture network codes (transactional event data is transformed, by the translator into the common data scheme such as BIAN (Banking Industry Architecture Network), para. 0013). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the system of Veal with the ability to stream transaction data associated with banking industry architecture network codes as taught by the system of Nitsopoulos. The motivation for doing so would have been for the streaming processor to convert the common data scheme message into a BIAN compliant data scheme (Nitsopoulos, para. 0040).
Claims 5-7, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Veal, in view of Nitsopoulos, and further in view of US 2008/0109315 to Huang et al. (hereinafter referred to as Huang).
In regards to claim 5, modified Veal discloses the compute device of claim 1, and further discloses wherein to determine a financial position (system runs the algorithms to summarize information that has been acquired and compiled to summarize income and spending habits and identify credit worthiness in relation to total baseline of users, para. 0027) comprises to determine (elements run individually to take the raw data of all bank transactions and remove unnecessary data to then run calculations on the remaining data after which the calculation data is used to create a credit profile which can then be scored against a weighted model of a perfect score to determine credit worthiness for that individual set of data, para. 0029) average balances across financial accounts of the customer (information including, but not limited to deposit amounts, deposit dates, deposit transaction name, matching bill payments, bill payment amounts, bill payment dates, the name on the account, nsf amounts, count of nsf's, savings account balance, and the like, para. 0026) to obtain a profile indicative of a financial stability of the customer (determining credit worthiness based on the financial history, para. 0012). However, Veal fails to disclose balances over multiple time periods.
Huang, in the related field of determining a customer’s likelihood of paying off a financial account, teaches balances over multiple time periods (one way to distinguish customers is too look at the curve of their balances over a period of time with a payoff indicator for a customer's financial account based on the area under the curve of the customer's account balance over time divided by the customer's outstanding balance for a financial account at the given moment, para. 0026). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the system of Veal with the ability to determine account balances over time as taught by the system of Huang. The motivation for doing so would have been normalize scoring between financial accounts having different contract amounts of allowable balances (Huang, para. 0026).
In regards to claim 6, modified Veal discloses the compute device of claim 5, and discloses wherein to obtain a profile indicative of the financial stability (determining credit worthiness based on the financial history, para. 0012), but fails to disclose comprises to determine a rate of change in balances across the financial accounts of the customer.
Huang, in the related field of determining a customer’s likelihood of paying off a financial account, teaches determine a rate of change in balances across the financial accounts of the customer (a score for a customer that is indicative of the customer's rate of payoff for a financial account can be found by multiplying the category variable values by the associated variable weights and summing the total as illustrated in Table 4, para. 0242, Table 4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the system of Veal with the ability to determine a rate of change of balances as taught by the system of Huang. The motivation for doing so would have to determine a total score indicating a payoff rate of a customer (Huang, para. 0243).
In regards to claim 7, modified Veal discloses the compute device of claim 5, and discloses wherein to obtain a profile indicative of the financial stability (determining credit worthiness based on the financial history, para. 0012), but fails to disclose comprises to determine a trajectory of balances across the financial accounts of the customer.
Huang, in the related field of determining a customer’s likelihood of paying off a financial account, teaches determine a trajectory of balances across the financial accounts of the customer (account information includes information regarding balance increases and balance decreases for accounts, para. 0294). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the system of Veal with the ability to determine increases or decreases of balances over time as taught by the system of Huang. The motivation for doing so would have to determine a score for a customer account indicative of the propensity of a customer to payoff a loan using variables including balance increases and balance increases (Huang, para. 0062).
In regards to claim 18, modified Veal discloses the method of claim 14, and further discloses wherein determining a financial position (system runs the algorithms to summarize information that has been acquired and compiled to summarize income and spending habits and identify credit worthiness in relation to total baseline of users, para. 0027) comprises determining (elements run individually to take the raw data of all bank transactions and remove unnecessary data to then run calculations on the remaining data after which the calculation data is used to create a credit profile which can then be scored against a weighted model of a perfect score to determine credit worthiness for that individual set of data, para. 0029) average balances across financial accounts of the customer (information including, but not limited to deposit amounts, deposit dates, deposit transaction name, matching bill payments, bill payment amounts, bill payment dates, the name on the account, nsf amounts, count of nsf's, savings account balance, and the like, para. 0026) to obtain a profile indicative of a financial stability of the customer (determining credit worthiness based on the financial history, para. 0012). However, Veal fails to disclose balances over multiple time periods.
Huang, in the related field of determining a customer’s likelihood of paying off a financial account, teaches balances over multiple time periods (one way to distinguish customers is too look at the curve of their balances over a period of time with a payoff indicator for a customer's financial account based on the area under the curve of the customer's account balance over time divided by the customer's outstanding balance for a financial account at the given moment, para. 0026). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the system of Veal with the ability to determine account balances over time as taught by the system of Huang. The motivation for doing so would have been normalize scoring between financial accounts having different contract amounts of allowable balances (Huang, para. 0026).
In regards to claim 19, modified Veal discloses the method of claim 18, and wherein obtaining a profile indicative of the financial stability (determining credit worthiness based on the financial history, para. 0012), but fails to disclose comprises determining a rate of change in balances across the financial accounts of the customer.
Huang, in the related field of determining a customer’s likelihood of paying off a financial account, teaches determining a rate of change in balances across the financial accounts of the customer (a score for a customer that is indicative of the customer's rate of payoff for a financial account can be found by multiplying the category variable values by the associated variable weights and summing the total as illustrated in Table 4, para. 0242, Table 4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the system of Veal with the ability to determine a rate of change of balances as taught by the system of Huang. The motivation for doing so would have to determine a total score indicating a payoff rate of a customer (Huang, para. 0243).
In regards to claim 20, modified Veal discloses the method of claim 18, and discloses wherein obtaining a profile indicative of the financial stability (determining credit worthiness based on the financial history, para. 0012), but fails to disclose comprises determining a trajectory of balances across the financial accounts of the customer. Huang, in the related field of determining a customer’s likelihood of paying off a financial account, teaches determining a trajectory of balances across the financial accounts of the customer (account information includes information regarding balance increases and balance decreases for accounts, para. 0294). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the system of Veal with the ability to determine increases or decreases of balances over time as taught by the system of Huang. The motivation for doing so would have to determine a score for a customer account indicative of the propensity of a customer to payoff a loan using variables including balance increases and balance increases (Huang, para. 0062).
Claims 8-13, and 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Veal, in view of Nitsopoulos, and further in view of US 20230222575 to Zhu et al. (hereinafter referred to as Zhu).
In regards to claim 8, modified Veal discloses the compute device of claim 1, and further discloses wherein to determine a financial position (system runs the algorithms to summarize information that has been acquired and compiled to summarize income and spending habits and identify credit worthiness in relation to total baseline of users, para. 0027), comprises to identify a risk associated with the customer by determining a likelihood of an inability of the customer to pay (gauging the person's current credit worthiness and their ability to make future payments, para. 0002; system runs the algorithms to summarize information that has been acquired and compiled to summarize income and spending habits and identify credit worthiness in relation to total baseline of users, para. 0027), but fails to disclose identify risk according to contractual terms of one or more financial products of the financial institution.
Zhu, in the related field of systems for exchanging user data to determine a risk score for a loan, teaches identify risk according to contractual terms (generate a risk score comprising likelihood user satisfy one or more conditions of the first loan, para. 0004) of one or more financial products of the financial institution (system uses a federated deep NN and model results to determine whether aspects of customers’ financial portfolios more likely indicate customers’ likelihood of meeting new loan conditions or requirements, para. 0052). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the system of Veal with the ability to risk of loan default as taught by the system of Zhu. The motivation for doing so would have to generate global risk scores for customers, indicating their credit worthiness and the likelihood they will satisfy conditions (e.g., payment schedules) of newly offered loans (Zhu, para. 0053).
In regards to claim 9, modified Veal discloses the compute device of claim 8, but fails to disclose wherein the circuitry is further configured to determine a remedial action to mitigate the risk comprising determining target contractual terms for one or more financial products to mitigate the risk.
Zhu, in the related field of systems for exchanging user data to determine a risk score for a loan, teaches determine a remedial action to mitigate the risk comprising determining target contractual terms for one or more financial products to mitigate the risk (system may retrieve, from the first user device, device data associated with the first user, generate an adjusted risk score based on the risk score and the device data using an MLM, generate one or more loan options for backing the first request for the first loan based on the adjusted risk score, and cause a graphical user interface (GUI) of the first user device to display the one or more loan options, para. 0006). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the system of Veal with the ability to mitigate risk of loan default as taught by the system of Zhu. The motivation for doing so would have to generate global risk scores for customers, indicating their credit worthiness and the likelihood they will satisfy conditions (e.g., payment schedules) of newly offered loans (Zhu, para. 0053).
In regards to claim 10, modified Veal discloses the compute device of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein to provide a user interface comprises to present decision data indicative of whether the customer should be approved for a loan and an amount of money the customer should be approved to borrow and an amount of credit the customer should be approved for.
Zhu, in the related field of systems for exchanging user data to determine a risk score for a loan, teaches wherein to provide a user interface comprises to present decision data indicative of whether the customer should be approved for a loan (cause a graphical user interface (GUI) of the first user device to display the one or more loan options, para. 0006) and an amount of money the customer should be approved to borrow and an amount of credit (Each of the one or more loan options may comprise one or more conditions, as discussed above, such as a payment schedule, a number of required installments, any applicable late fees, and the like, para. 0055) the customer should be approved for (block 316, the system (e.g., via data exchange system 104) may transmit the one or more loan options for display to the first user via a GUI to enable the first user to look through the options and their associated conditions, para. 0056). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the system of Veal with the ability to loan approval information to a customer as taught by the system of Zhu. The motivation for doing so would have to display one or more loan options via a GUI such that the user may interact with the display by clicking on a button to view and/or select each loan option (Zhu, para. 0067).
In regards to claim 11, modified Veal discloses the compute device of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein to provide a user interface comprises to present data indicative of a risk of late payment or default for one or more financial products of the financial institution.
Zhu, in the related field of systems for exchanging user data to determine a risk score for a loan, teaches wherein to provide a user interface (cause a graphical user interface (GUI) of the first user device to display the one or more loan options, para. 0006) comprises to present data indicative of a risk of late payment or default for one or more financial products of the financial institution (system may transmit to one or more lenders, the risk score comprising a likelihood the first user will satisfy one more conditions of a first loan, para. 0004). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the system of Veal with the ability to mitigate risk of loan default as taught by the system of Zhu. The motivation for doing so would have to generate global risk scores for customers, indicating their credit worthiness and the likelihood they will satisfy conditions (e.g., payment schedules) of newly offered loans (Zhu, para. 0053).
In regards to claim 12, modified Veal discloses the compute device of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein to provide a user interface comprises to present data indicative of a personalized offering of a financial product as a function of the customer financial position.
Zhu, in the related field of systems for exchanging user data to determine a risk score for a loan, teaches wherein to provide a user interface comprises to present decision data indicative of a personalized offering of a financial product (cause a graphical user interface (GUI) of the first user device to display the one or more loan options, para. 0006; Each of the one or more loan options may comprise one or more conditions, as discussed above, such as a payment schedule, a number of required installments, any applicable late fees, and the like, para. 0055) as a function of the customer financial position (model initially trained by defining variables potentially relevant to customers' ability to pay back loans, such as payments history, purchased product category, demographics, income, credit score, and the like, para. 0043). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the system of Veal with the ability customer loans pursuant their financial position as taught by the system of Zhu. The motivation for doing so would have to use the federated deep NN, along with the entity-provided model results, to determine whether certain aspects of customers' financial portfolios (e.g., number of existing loans, historical trends in paying off loans and other accounts, etc.) more likely indicate customers' likelihood of meeting new loan conditions or requirements (Zhu, para. 0052).
In regards to claim 13, modified Veal discloses the compute device of claim 12, but fails to disclose wherein to provide data indicative of a personalized offering comprises to present, as a function of the customer financial position, a personalized offer based on one or more of a determined behavior of the customer, a determined risk associated with the customer, or a determined amount approved for a loan or credit for the customer.
Zhu, in the related field of systems for exchanging user data to determine a risk score for a loan, teaches wherein to provide data indicative of a personalized offering (cause a graphical user interface (GUI) of the first user device to display the one or more loan options, para. 0006; Each of the one or more loan options may comprise one or more conditions, as discussed above, such as a payment schedule, a number of required installments, any applicable late fees, and the like, para. 0055) as a function of the customer financial position (model initially trained by defining variables potentially relevant to customers' ability to pay back loans, such as payments history, purchased product category, demographics, income, credit score, and the like, para. 0043) a personalized offer based on one or more of a determined risk associated with the customer (generate using the federated deep NN, a risk score associated with the first user in the form of an index score (e.g. on a 1-10 scale), para. 0052). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the system of Veal with the ability customer loans pursuant their financial position and based on risk as taught by the system of Zhu. The motivation for doing so would have to use the federated deep NN, along with the entity-provided model results, to determine whether certain aspects of customers' financial portfolios (e.g., number of existing loans, historical trends in paying off loans and other accounts, etc.) more likely indicate customers' likelihood of meeting new loan conditions or requirements (Zhu, para. 0052).
In regards to claim 21, modified Veal discloses the method of claim 14, and further discloses wherein determining a financial position (system runs the algorithms to summarize information that has been acquired and compiled to summarize income and spending habits and identify credit worthiness in relation to total baseline of users, para. 0027) comprises identifying a risk associated with the customer by determining a likelihood of an inability of the customer to pay (gauging the person's current credit worthiness and their ability to make future payments, para. 0002; system runs the algorithms to summarize information that has been acquired and compiled to summarize income and spending habits and identify credit worthiness in relation to total baseline of users, para. 0027), but fails to disclose identify risk according to contractual terms of one or more financial products of the financial institution.
Zhu, in the related field of systems for exchanging user data to determine a risk score for a loan, teaches identify risk according to contractual terms (generate a risk score comprising likelihood user satisfy one or more conditions of the first loan, para. 0004) of one or more financial products of the financial institution (system uses a federated deep NN and model results to determine whether aspects of customers’ financial portfolios more likely indicate customers’ likelihood of meeting new loan conditions or requirements, para. 0052). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the system of Veal with the ability to risk of loan default as taught by the system of Zhu. The motivation for doing so would have to generate global risk scores for customers, indicating their credit worthiness and the likelihood they will satisfy conditions (e.g., payment schedules) of newly offered loans (Zhu, para. 0053).
In regards to claim 22, modified Veal discloses the method of claim 21, but fails to disclose further comprising determining a remedial action to mitigate the risk by determining target contractual terms for one or more financial products to mitigate the risk.
Zhu, in the related field of systems for exchanging user data to determine a risk score for a loan, teaches determining a remedial action to mitigate the risk by determining target contractual terms for one or more financial products to mitigate the risk (system may retrieve, from the first user device, device data associated with the first user, generate an adjusted risk score based on the risk score and the device data using an MLM, generate one or more loan options for backing the first request for the first loan based on the adjusted risk score, and cause a graphical user interface (GUI) of the first user device to display the one or more loan options, para. 0006). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the system of Veal with the ability to mitigate risk of loan default as taught by the system of Zhu. The motivation for doing so would have to generate global risk scores for customers, indicating their credit worthiness and the likelihood they will satisfy conditions (e.g., payment schedules) of newly offered loans (Zhu, para. 0053).
In regards to claim 23, modified Veal discloses the method of claim 14, but fails to disclose wherein providing a user interface comprises presenting decision data indicative of whether the customer should be approved for a loan and an amount of money the customer should be approved to borrow and an amount of credit the customer should be approved for.
Zhu, in the related field of systems for exchanging user data to determine a risk score for a loan, teaches wherein providing a user interface comprises presenting decision data indicative of whether the customer should be approved for a loan (cause a graphical user interface (GUI) of the first user device to display the one or more loan options, para. 0006) and an amount of money the customer should be approved to borrow and an amount of credit (Each of the one or more loan options may comprise one or more conditions, as discussed above, such as a payment schedule, a number of required installments, any applicable late fees, and the like, para. 0055) the customer should be approved for (block 316, the system (e.g., via data exchange system 104) may transmit the one or more loan options for display to the first user via a GUI to enable the first user to look through the options and their associated conditions, para. 0056). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the system of Veal with the ability to loan approval information to a customer as taught by the system of Zhu. The motivation for doing so would have to display one or more loan options via a GUI such that the user may interact with the display by clicking on a button to view and/or select each loan option (Zhu, para. 0067).
In regards to claim 24, modified Veal discloses the method of claim 14, but fails to disclose wherein providing a user interface comprises presenting data indicative of a risk of late payment or default for one or more financial products of the financial institution.
Zhu, in the related field of systems for exchanging user data to determine a risk score for a loan, teaches wherein providing a user interface (cause a graphical user interface (GUI) of the first user device to display the one or more loan options, para. 0006) comprises presenting data indicative of a risk of late payment or default for one or more financial products of the financial institution (system may transmit to one or more lenders, the risk score comprising a likelihood the first user will satisfy one more conditions of a first loan, para. 0004). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the system of Veal with the ability to mitigate risk of loan default as taught by the system of Zhu. The motivation for doing so would have to generate global risk scores for customers, indicating their credit worthiness and the likelihood they will satisfy conditions (e.g., payment schedules) of newly offered loans (Zhu, para. 0053).
In regards to claim 25, modified Veal discloses the method of claim 14, but fails to disclose wherein providing a user interface comprises presenting data indicative of a personalized offering of a financial product as a function of the customer financial position.
Zhu, in the related field of systems for exchanging user data to determine a risk score for a loan, teaches wherein providing a user interface comprises presenting decision data indicative of a personalized offering of a financial product (cause a graphical user interface (GUI) of the first user device to display the one or more loan options, para. 0006; Each of the one or more loan options may comprise one or more conditions, as discussed above, such as a payment schedule, a number of required installments, any applicable late fees, and the like, para. 0055) as a function of the customer financial position (model initially trained by defining variables potentially relevant to customers' ability to pay back loans, such as payments history, purchased product category, demographics, income, credit score, and the like, para. 0043). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the system of Veal with the ability customer loans pursuant their financial position as taught by the system of Zhu. The motivation for doing so would have to use the federated deep NN, along with the entity-provided model results, to determine whether certain aspects of customers' financial portfolios (e.g., number of existing loans, historical trends in paying off loans and other accounts, etc.) more likely indicate customers' likelihood of meeting new loan conditions or requirements (Zhu, para. 0052).
In regards to claim 26, modified Veal discloses the method of claim 25, but fails to disclose wherein providing data indicative of a personalized offering comprises presenting, as a function of the customer financial position, a personalized offer based on one or more of a determined behavior of the customer, a determined risk associated with the customer, or a determined amount approved for a loan or credit for the customer.
Zhu, in the related field of systems for exchanging user data to determine a risk score for a loan, teaches wherein providing data indicative of a personalized offering (cause a graphical user interface (GUI) of the first user device to display the one or more loan options, para. 0006; Each of the one or more loan options may comprise one or more conditions, as discussed above, such as a payment schedule, a number of required installments, any applicable late fees, and the like, para. 0055) comprises presenting, as a function of the customer financial position (model initially trained by defining variables potentially relevant to customers' ability to pay back loans, such as payments history, purchased product category, demographics, income, credit score, and the like, para. 0043), a personalized offer based on a determined risk associated with the customer (generate using the federated deep NN, a risk score associated with the first user in the form of an index score (e.g. on a 1-10 scale), para. 0052). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the system of Veal with the ability customer loans pursuant their financial position and based on risk as taught by the system of Zhu. The motivation for doing so would have to use the federated deep NN, along with the entity-provided model results, to determine whether certain aspects of customers' financial portfolios (e.g., number of existing loans, historical trends in paying off loans and other accounts, etc.) more likely indicate customers' likelihood of meeting new loan conditions or requirements (Zhu, para. 0052).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pai et al. (US 9817679) teaches a technique for collecting financial information.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Paul Schwarzenberg whose telephone number is (313) 446-6611. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday (7:30-6:30).
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, Christine Behncke, can be reached on (571) 272-8103. 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.
/PAUL S SCHWARZENBERG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3695 3/31/2026