DETAILED ACTION
1. 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 .
2. Status of Application and Claims
Claims 1-33 are pending.
This office action is being issued in response to the Applicant's filing(s) on 1/16/2025.
3. Claim Interpretation
The subject matter of a properly construed claim is defined by the terms that limit its scope when given their broadest reasonable interpretation. see MPEP §2013(I)(C). Specifically, the “broadest reasonable construction ‘in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.’” See MPEP §2111, citing Phillips v. AWH Corp., 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005). However, “[t]hough understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into claim limitations that are not part of the claim.” See MPEP §2111.01, citing Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Construing claims broadly during prosecution is not unfair to the applicant, because the applicant has the opportunity to amend the claims to obtain more precise claim coverage. See MPEP §2111, citing In re Yamamoto, 222 USPQ 934, 936 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
As a general matter, grammar and the plain meaning of terms as understood by one having ordinary skill in the art used in a claim will dictate whether, and to what extent, the language limits the claim scope. See MPEP §2013(I)(C). Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. See MPEP §2013(I)(C).
As such, claim limitations that contain statement(s) such as “if,” “may,” “might,” “can,” and “could” are treated as containing optional language. See MPEP §2013(I)(C). As matter of linguistic precision, optional claim elements do not narrow claim limitations, since they can always be omitted. See MPEP §2013(I)(C).
Similarly, a method step exercised or triggered upon the satisfaction of a condition, where there remains the possibility that the condition was not satisfied under the broadest reasonable interpretation, is an optional claim limitation. See MPEP §2111.04(II). As the Applicant does not address what happens should the optional claim limitations fail, Examiner assumes that nothing happens (i.e., the method stops). An alternate interpretation is that merely the claim limitations based upon the condition are not triggered or performed.
In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art. See MPEP §2143.03, citing Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2009);
Language in a method or system claim that states only the intended use or intended result, but does not result in a manipulative difference in the steps of the method claim nor a structural difference between the system claim and the prior art, fails to distinguish the claims from the prior art.
The following types of claim language may raise a question as to its limiting effect (this list is not exhaustive):
Statements of intended use or field of use, including statements of purpose or intended use in the preamble. See MPEP §2111.02;
Clauses such as “adapted to”, “adapted for”, “wherein”, and “whereby.” See MPEP §2111.04;
Contingent limitations. See MPEP §2111.04(II);
Printed matter. See MPEP §2111.05; and
Functional language associated with a claim term. See MPEP §2181.
As such, while all claim limitations have been considered and all words in the claims have been considered in judging the patentability of the claimed invention, the following italicized, underlined and/or boldened language is interpreted as not further limiting the scope of the claimed invention.
Additionally, the following italicized, underlined and emboldened language is not necessarily an exhaustive list of claim language that is interpreted as not further limiting the scope of the claimed invention. Applicant should review all claims for additional claim interpretation issues.
Claim 1 recites a method comprising:
providing at least one first computer (101) including at least one processing device and at least one memory device, wherein the at least one first computer is operated by a transaction facilitation company and is configured to communicate with one or more other computers by at least one internet-based communication link (108);
receiving first information at the at least one first computer (101) from the at least one internet-based communication link (108), the first information concerning at least one lead relating to the first home improvement project of interest to the first consumer;
additionally receiving second information at the at least one first computer (101) from the at least one internet-based communication link, the second information relating to a first soft credit application by the first consumer;
sending third information for receipt by one or more lending company computers including a second computer (102) operated by a first lending company, the third information relating to a soft credit pull report;
further receiving fourth information at the at least one first computer (101) from the at least one internet-based communication link at least indirectly from the one or more lending company computers including the second computer (102), wherein the fourth information includes an indication that the first lending company has approved of the first soft credit application.
Claim elements (i.e., the contents of the information(s)) pertain to nonfunctional descriptive material and are not functionally involved in the steps recited. Thus, this descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. See MPEP §2111.05 (III).
Claims 3 (i.e., contents in first information), 11 (i.e., data elements accessed in cache), 18 (i.e., contents in first information), 19 (i.e., contents in first information), and 26 (i.e., same issues as Claim 1) due to similar claim language, result in a similar claim interpretation.
Claim 1 recites a method comprising:
providing at least one first computer (101) including at least one processing device and at least one memory device, wherein the at least one first computer is operated by a transaction facilitation company and is configured to communicate with one or more other computers by at least one internet-based communication link (108);
receiving first information at the at least one first computer (101) from the at least one internet-based communication link (108), the first information concerning at least one lead relating to the first home improvement project of interest to the first consumer;
additionally receiving second information at the at least one first computer (101) from the at least one internet-based communication link, the second information relating to a first soft credit application by the first consumer;
sending third information for receipt by one or more lending company computers including a second computer (102) operated by a first lending company, the third information relating to a soft credit pull report;
further receiving fourth information at the at least one first computer (101) from the at least one internet-based communication link at least indirectly from the one or more lending company computers including the second computer (102), wherein the fourth information includes an indication that the first lending company has approved of the first soft credit application; and
additionally sending, for receipt either by a third computer (103) operated by a first contractor or a fourth computer (104) operated by the first consumer, the fourth information or further information based upon the fourth information, wherein, based upon the fourth information or the further information, the first consumer is able at least indirectly to complete a loan arrangement so as to fund the first home improvement project.
Claim elements pertaining to the operator and/or owner of the computer(s) are not functionally involved in the steps recited. The method steps performed by the computer(s) are performed regardless of the entity that operates the computer(s). As such, these claim elements will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. See MPEP §2111.05 (III).
Claims 2-4, 8, 17, 18, 20, 21, 26 and 29 due to similar claim language, result in a similar claim interpretation.
Claim 1 recites a method comprising:
additionally sending, for receipt either by a third computer (103) operated by a first contractor or a fourth computer (104) operated by the first consumer, the fourth information or further information based upon the fourth information, wherein, based upon the fourth information or the further information, the first consumer is able at least indirectly to complete a loan arrangement so as to fund the first home improvement project.
Method claims are defined by the method steps being actively performed (i.e., sending the fourth information or further information), not method steps possibly performed in the future (i.e., completing a loan arrangement). Claiming method steps in the future tense can be interpreted as the method steps possibly performed in the future are outside the scope of the claimed method.
Claim 4 recites a method wherein:
the soft credit pull report is received at the at least one first computer (101) from the at least one internet-based communication link (108) at least indirectly from the sixth computer (106) operated by the credit reporting agency computer (106), the soft credit pull report being indicative of at least one credit characteristic of the first consumer; and
the at least one first computer (101) at least partly utilizes the soft credit pull report to classify one or more lending companies respectively associated with the one or more lending company computers and to determine how or when the third information is sent to respective ones of the one or more lending company computers including the second computer (102).
Method claims are defined by the method steps being actively performed, not method steps performed in the past (i.e., received). Claiming method steps in the past tense can be interpreted as the method steps performed in the past are outside the scope of the claimed method. Alternatively stated, the scope of the claimed method are the active method steps which are building off a pre-existing state. The method steps performed for creation of the pre-existing state are outside the scope of the claimed invention.
Additionally, method claims are defined by the method steps being actively performed (i.e., classifying and determining), not method steps possibly performed in the future (i.e., utilizes the soft credit pull report to classify and to determine). Claiming method steps in the future tense can be interpreted as the method steps possibly performed in the future are outside the scope of the claimed method.
Claims 5 (i.e., utilizes data to classify), 6 (i.e., approvals are updated), 7 (i.e., utilizes information to classify), 8 (i.e., utilizes report to classify), 11 (i.e., engine accesses cache), 18 (i.e., submitted via a web portal), and 19 (i.e., consent is received in response to a past text message) due to similar claim language, result in a similar claim interpretation.
Claim 6 recites a method wherein the lending company historical approval levels are updated in real time each time another consumer seeks funding for another home improvement project.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent is not met. See MPEP §2111.04(II).
Usage of the term and/or phrase “each time another consumer seeks funding for another home improvement project” in Claim 6 suggests that there remains the possibility that the contingent limitations are not performed as the condition(s) precedent is not met (i.e., there no other consumers seeking funding). Therefore, the claim limitations based upon the condition are optional claim limitations. As a matter of linguistic precision, optional claim limitations do not narrow the scope of the invention, since they can always be omitted. See MPEP §2111.04(II).
As the Applicant does not address what happens should the optional claim limitation(s) fail, Examiner assumes that nothing happens (i.e., the method stops). An alternate interpretation is that merely the claim limitations based upon the condition are not triggered or performed.
Claim 14 has similar issues as Claim 14 lists a sequence of potential actions but the later actions are only performed if the previous actions do not occur.
Claim 15 recites a method wherein the at least one first computer (101) is configured to provide or serve as both a lead customer relations management (CRM) service and a lending platform.
Method claims are defined by the method steps being actively performed, not method steps that may or may not be performed. Reciting a system element in a method claim is configured to perform a function (i.e., configured to provide a lead customer relations management service) does not mean that the method step is actually performed (i.e., providing a lead customer relations management service).
Claims 24 and 25, due to similar claim language, result in a similar claim interpretation.
4. 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 1-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
STEP 1
The claimed invention falls within one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture and composition of matter). See MPEP §2106.03.
STEP 2A – PRONG ONE
The claim(s) recite(s) a method and/or a system configured to perform a method comprising:
providing at least one … transaction facilitation company …;
receiving first information at the at least one [transaction facilitation company] …, the first information concerning at least one lead relating to the first home improvement project of interest to the first consumer;
additionally receiving second information at the [transaction facilitation company], the second information relating to a first soft credit application by the first consumer;
sending third information for receipt by one or more lending company … operated by a first lending company, the third information relating to a soft credit pull report;
further receiving fourth information at the at least one [transaction facilitation company] … from the one or more lending company computers … wherein the fourth information includes an indication that the first lending company has approved of the first soft credit application; and
additionally sending, for receipt either by a … first contractor or … the first consumer, the fourth information or further information based upon the fourth information, wherein, based upon the fourth information or the further information, the first consumer is able at least indirectly to complete a loan arrangement so as to fund the first home improvement project.
These limitations, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a series of steps instructing how to perform a credit check prior to completing a loan which is a fundamental economic practice, a sub-category of certain method(s) of organizing human activity, an enumerated grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A).
Examiner notes that performing a credit check prior to completing a loan is mitigation of financial risk and that the mitigation of financial risk is a court-provided example of a fundamental economic practice. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A), citing Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank. (2014).
Additionally, these limitations, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a series of steps instructing how to *** which qualifies as a commercial or legal interaction, a subcategory of certain methods of organizing human activity, an enumerated grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B).
Examiner notes that “processing an application for financing a loan” is a court-provided example of a commercial or legal interaction. see MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B) citing Credit Acceptance v. Westlake Services (Fed. Cir. 2017) and Dealertrack v. Huber (Fed. Cir. 2021).
Accordingly, the claimed invention recites an abstract idea.
STEP 2A – PRONG TWO
The claimed invention recites additional elements (i.e., computer elements) of computer(s) (Claim(s) 1 and 26), a processing device (Claim(s) 1 and 26), a memory (Claim(s) 1 and 26), and internet-based communication links(s) (Claim(s) 1 and 26).
The claimed invention does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception because the claims do not provide improvements to another technology or technical field; improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; are not applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition; are not applying the judicial exception with or by use of a particular machine; are not effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and are not applying the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP §2106.04(d).
The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP §2106.05(f). Alternately, the additional elements amount to no more than generally linking the exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §2106.05(h). Accordingly, these additional element(s), when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application.
STEP 2B
Upon reconsideration of the indicia noted under Step 2A in concert with the Step 2B considerations, the additional claim element(s) amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §2106.07(a)(II). The same analysis applies in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claim does not provide an inventive concept significantly more than the abstract idea.
DEPENDENT CLAIMS
Dependent Claim(s) 2-25 and 27-33 recite claim limitations that further define the abstract idea recited in respective independent Claim(s) 1 and 26. As such, the dependent claims are also grouped an abstract idea utilizing the same rationale as previously asserted against the independent claims.
Dependent Claim(s) recite additional elements (i.e., computer elements) of an engine (Claim(s) 10 and 31), a server (Claim(s) 10), a cache (Claim(s) 11 and 31), a platform (Claim(s) 15 and 27), an application programming interface (Claim(s) 17 and 29), email communication (Claim(s) 17 and 29), text message communication (Claim(s) 17 and 29), a web portal (Claim(s) 18), an application (Claim(s) 23) and a cloud computing system (Claim(s) 30) and a mobile device (Claim(s) 32).
In each case, the additional element(s) are recited at a high level of generality such that these additional element(s) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the judicial exception or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination utilizing the same rationale as previously asserted against the independent claims.
Accordingly, the dependent claim(s) are also not patent eligible.
Appropriate correction is requested.
5. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites a method comprising:
further receiving fourth information at the at least one first computer (101) from the at least one internet-based communication link at least indirectly from the one or more lending company computers including the second computer (102), wherein the fourth information includes an indication that the first lending company has approved of the first soft credit application;
…
additionally sending, for receipt either by a third computer (103) operated by a first contractor or a fourth computer (104) operated by the first consumer, the fourth information or further information based upon the fourth information, wherein, based upon the fourth information or the further information, the first consumer is able at least indirectly to complete a loan arrangement so as to fund the first home improvement project.
What does “at least indirectly” mean?
Claims 2, 4, 8, 18, 21, 26 and 32 are rejected based upon similar claim language.
Claims 3, 5-7, 9-17, 18, 20, 22-25, 27-31 and 33 are rejected based upon the dependency to previously rejected claims.
Claim 5 recites a method wherein the at least one credit characteristic includes a FICO® score and a debt-to- income ratio, and either the further information or additional information includes lending company historical approval levels based on the FICO® score and the debt-to-income ratio; and wherein the at least one first computer (101) utilizes the further information or additional information to classify one or more lending companies respectively associated with the one or more lending company computers and to determine how or when the third information is sent to respective ones of the one or more lending company computers including the second computer.
Claim 5 contains the trademark and/or trade name FICO®. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See MPEP §2173.05(b)(IV).
Additionally, Claim 5 recites “at least one credit characteristic includes a FICO® score [a first credit characteristic] and a debt-to- income ratio [a second credit characteristic].” Does this mean that the one credit characteristic is one of the two recited credit characteristics, or that the one credit characteristic is actually two credit characteristics?
Claim 12 is rejected based upon similar claim language.
Claim 15 recites a method wherein the at least one first computer (101) is configured to provide or serve as both a lead customer relations management (CRM) service and a lending platform.
Claim 16 recites the method of claim 15, further comprising communicating, between the lending platform of the at least one first computer and the lead CRM service of the at least one computer, at least some of the first information, the second information, the third information, the fourth information, or the further information.
Is the first computer serving as both a lead customer relations management (CRM) service and a lending platform (i.e., one device that is serving dual roles) as recited in Claim 15?
Examiner notes that Claim 16 recites that the CRM service and lending platform communicate data between themselves, implying that the CRM service and the lending platform are devices.
As such, is the first computer actually an aggregation of a CRM service device and a lending device (i.e., two devices each with a separate role) as recited in Claim 16?
Claims 27 and 28 are rejected based upon similar claim language.
Appropriate correction is requested.
6. 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4, 9-10, 15-29, 32 and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garrity (US PG Pub. 2021/0142403) in view of Brown (US PG Pub. 2016/0125528).
Regarding Claim 1, Garrity discloses a method:
providing at least one first computer including at least one processing device (loan-application processing server) and at least one memory device, wherein the at least one first computer is operated by a transaction facilitation company and is configured to communicate with one or more other computers by at least one internet-based communication link (internet connection). (see fig. 8; para. 44 and 49);
receiving first information (loan application) at the at least one first computer (loan-application processing server) from the at least one internet-based communication link, the first information concerning at least one lead relating to the first home improvement project of interest to the first consumer. (see fig. 8; para. 40, 44 and 49);
additionally receiving information (loan application) at the at least one first computer (loan-application processing server) from the at least one internet-based communication link, the information relating to a first credit application (loan application) by the first consumer. (see fig. 8; para. 14, 40 and 44);
sending third information for receipt by one or more lending company computers including a second computer operated by a first lending company (lender partners), the third information relating to a credit pull report. (see fig. 8; para. 44 and 49);
further receiving fourth information at the at least one first computer from the at least one internet-based communication link at least indirectly from the one or more lending company computers including the second computer (lender partners), wherein the fourth information includes an indication that the first lending company (lender partner) has approved (accepted) of the first credit application. (see fig. 8; para. 44 and 49); and
additionally sending, for receipt either by a third computer operated by a first contractor (merchant) or a fourth computer operated by the first consumer, the fourth information (approval indication) or further information based upon the fourth information. (see fig. 8; para. 40 and 49-55);
wherein, based upon the fourth information or the further information, the first consumer is able at least indirectly to complete a loan arrangement so as to fund the first home improvement project. (see para. 5).
Garrity does not explicitly recite a method wherein the information concerning at least one lead relating to the first home improvement project of interest to the first consumer and the relating to a first credit application by the first consumer is split across a first and a second information.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Garrity by separating one composite claim element contained in Garrity (i.e., the information) into component claim elements (e.g., a first information and a second information) wherein each component claim element would serve the same separate function performed when it was a component in the original composite claim element. In the separation each component claim element, would merely have performed the same function as it did previously, and one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention would have recognized that the results of the separation were predictable. See MPEP §2144.04 (V)(C).
Garrity does not teach a method wherein the credit application is a soft credit application; or the credit pull report is a soft credit pull report.
Brown discloses a method wherein the credit application is a soft credit application (soft inquiry); and the credit pull report is a soft credit pull report (report stemming from a soft inquiry). (see para. 31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Garrity to incorporate a soft credit check, as disclosed by Brown, thereby obtaining all the benefits of a soft credit check, a credit check that does not negatively impact one’s credit score.
Regarding Claim 2, Garrity discloses a method wherein the first information is received at least indirectly from one or more of the third computer operated by the first contractor (merchant or retailer), the fourth computer operated by the first consumer, and a fifth computer operated by a lead generation company (lead management system). (see fig. 8; para. 40 and 49-55)
Regarding Claim 3, Garrity discloses a method wherein the first information additionally includes an indication of consent from the first consumer that a credit pull may be performed in relation to the first consumer (loan application), and wherein the method further comprises additionally sending at least a portion of the first information (loan application) or the second information for receipt by a sixth computer operated by a credit reporting agency (a server that performs a credit bureau check) including the indication of consent by the first consumer that the credit pull may be performed. (see fig. 8; para. 14, 40, 44 and 49).
Garrity does not explicitly teach a method wherein a first information includes an explicit indication of consent from the first consumer that a credit pull may be performed in relation to the first consumer, although submission of a loan application is at least an implied indication of consent from the first consumer that a credit pull may be performed in relation to the first consumer.
Regardless, Brown discloses a method wherein the first information includes an indication of consent from the first consumer that a soft credit pull may be performed in relation to the first consumer. (see para. 31-32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Garrity and Brown to incorporate a consent for a soft credit check, as disclosed by Brown, thereby ensuring that the soft credit check has been authorized by the consumer.
Regarding Claim 4, Garrity discloses a method wherein:
the soft credit pull report is received at the at least one first computer (loan-application processing server) from the at least one internet-based communication link at least indirectly from the sixth computer operated by the credit reporting agency computer (a server that performs a credit bureau check), the credit pull report being indicative of at least one credit characteristic of the first consumer (credit rating). (see para. 14); and
the at least one first computer at least partly utilizes the credit pull report to classify one or more lending companies respectively associated with the one or more lending company computers (as a selected lender) and to determine how or when the third information is sent to respective ones of the one or more lending company computers including the second computer (sent when selected). (see para. 20 and 49).
Regarding Claim 9, Garrity discloses a method comprising based at least partly upon the at least one credit characteristic of the first consumer (credit rating and history), performing a classification with respect to lender suitability (selecting an appropriate lender). (see para. 49).
Regarding Claim 10, Garrity discloses a method wherein the classification is performed at least in part by an appetite engine implemented at least partly on a server computer included by the at least one first computer (see para. 49).
Regarding Claim 15, Garrity discloses a method wherein the at least one first computer (loan-application processing server) is configured to provide or serve as both a lead customer relations management (CRM) service and a lending platform. (see fig. 8).
Regarding Claim(s) 16, such claim(s) recites substantially similar limitations as claimed in previously rejected claim(s) and, therefore, would have been obvious based upon previously rejected claim(s).
Regarding Claim 17, Garrity discloses a method wherein the at least one first computer is configured to communicate with one or both of the third computer operated by the first contractor and the fourth computer operated by the first consumer in a manner that includes one or more of (a) an email communication, (b) a text message communication, or (c) a customer relations management (CRM) application programming interface (API) communication (see para. 3 and 45).
Regarding Claim 18, Garrity discloses a method wherein:
the first information concerning at least one lead relating to the first home improvement project of interest to the first consumer is obtained from the at least one internet-based communication link at least indirectly from the fourth computer operated by the first consumer. (see para. 40-41); and
wherein the first information includes a loan application and is submitted via a web portal made available by the at least one first computer. (see fig. 5A; para. 40).
Regarding Claim(s) 19-24, such claim(s) recites substantially similar limitations as claimed in previously rejected claim(s) and, therefore, would have been obvious based upon previously rejected claim(s).
Regarding Claim 25, Garrity discloses a method wherein the at least one first computer is configured to assess the creditworthiness (credit rating) of the first consumer based upon at least one credit report (credit check) including each of a first credit report (credit check) received from a first credit reporting agency (service that performs a credit check). (see para. 14 and 49).
Garrity does not explicitly teach a method wherein the assessment is based on at least two credit reports.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Garrity and Brown by duplicating claim elements contained in Garrity (e.g., the first credit report) to create additional claim elements (e.g., a second credit report) wherein each additional claim element would serve the same function as the original claim element. In the combination each element, original element and additional element, would merely have performed the same function as it did previously, and one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. see MPEP §2144.04 (VI)(B).
Garrity does not teach a method wherein the first credit report includes or included by the soft credit pull report. (see para. 14).
Brown discloses a method wherein the first credit report includes or included by the soft credit pull report. (see para. 31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Garrity and Brown to incorporate a soft credit check, as disclosed by Brown, thereby obtaining all the benefits of a soft credit check, a credit check that does not negatively impact one’s credit score.
Regarding Claim(s) 26-29, such claim(s) recites substantially similar limitations as claimed in previously rejected claim(s) and, therefore, would have been obvious based upon previously rejected claim(s).
Regarding Claim 32, Garrity discloses a system wherein the at least one first computer is configured to engage in communication in relation to the one or more second computers, one or more third computers, one or more fourth computers, one or more fifth computers, or one or more sixth computers, at least one of which is a mobile device. (see fig. 8).
Garrity does not teach a system wherein the communication is, at least indirectly or partly, in wireless communications.
Brown discloses a system wherein the communication is, at least indirectly or partly, in wireless communications. (see para. 16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Garrity and Brown to incorporate wireless communication, as disclosed by Brown, as wireless communication is a standard and conventional means through which computing devices communicate.
Regarding Claim(s) 33, such claim(s) recites substantially similar limitations as claimed in previously rejected claim(s) and, therefore, would have been obvious based upon previously rejected claim(s).
Claim(s) 5-8 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garrity and Brown, as applied to Claims 4 and 26 above, and further in view of Sheehan (US PG Pub. 2023/0359944).
Regarding Claim 5, Garrity discloses a method wherein:
the at least one credit characteristic includes a credit rating. (see para. 49); and
the at least one first computer utilizes the further information or additional information to classify one or more lending companies respectively associated with the one or more lending company computers (as being appropriate) and to determine how or when the third information is sent to respective ones of the one or more lending company computers including the second computer. (see fig. 8; para. 44 and 49).
Garrity does not explicitly teach a method wherein the credit rating is a FICO score; or the one credit characteristic includes a debt-to-income ratio.
Garrity does not teach a method wherein the further information or additional information includes lending company historical approval levels based on the FICO score and the debt-to-income ratio.
Brown discloses a method wherein the credit rating is a FICO score.
Sheehan discloses a method wherein:
the credit rating is a FICO score (see para. 38);
the one credit characteristic includes a debt-to-income ratio. (see para. 62); and
the further information or additional information includes lending company historical approval levels (lender’s historical performance and approval rate) based on the FICO score (credit score bin). (see para. 23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Garrity and Brown to incorporate a FICO score, as disclosed by Brown and Sheehan, as a FICO score is a standard and conventional credit rating utilized in lending.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Garrity, Brown and Sheehan to incorporate a lender’s approval rate, as disclosed Sheehan, thereby aiding in determining whether a lender is an appropriate lender for the consumer.
Regarding Claim 6, Garrity discloses a method wherein the lead-management system is updated in real-time each time another consumer seeking funding for another home improvement project (is approved). (see para. 14, 44 and 47).
Regarding Claim 7, Garrity discloses a method wherein:
the at least one first computer classifies one or more eligible lending companies respectively associated with the one or more lending company computers (as being appropriate). (see fig. 8; para. 44 and 49); and
the third information is sent to only the one or more lending company computers with which the one or more eligible lending companies are respectively associated, including the second computer. (see fig. 8; para. 44 and 49).
Garrity does not teach a method wherein the further information or additional information at least partly concerns lending companies that will extend loans to customers of the first contractor and are thereby identified as eligible lending companies.
Sheehan discloses a method wherein the further information or additional information (lender’s historical performance and approval rare) at least partly concerns lending companies that will extend loans to customers of the first contractor and are thereby identified as eligible lending companies. (see para. 23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Garrity, Brown and Sheehan to incorporate a lender’s approval rate, as disclosed Sheehan, thereby aiding in determining whether a lender is an appropriate lender for the consumer.
Regarding Claim(s) 8, such claim(s) recites substantially similar limitations as claimed in previously rejected claim(s) and, therefore, would have been obvious based upon previously rejected claim(s).
Regarding Claim 30, Garrity does not teach a system wherein the at least one first computer at least partly is implemented as part of a cloud computing system.
Sheehan discloses a system wherein the at least one first computer at least partly is implemented as part of a cloud computing system. (see para. 48).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Garrity, Brown and Sheehan to a cloud computing system, as disclosed Sheehan, to obtain the inherent benefits of cloud computing such as flexibility and efficiency.
Claim(s) 11-14 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garrity and Brown, as applied to Claims 2 and 26 above, and further in view of Riga (US PG Pub. 2016/0124644).
Regarding Claim 11, Garrity does not teach a method wherein the appetite engine accesses one or more of application information, dealer configuration, and lender status information from a least recently used (LRU) cache included as part of the at least one first computer.
Riga discloses a method wherein the appetite engine accesses one or more of application information from a least recently used (LRU) cache included as part of the at least one first computer. (see para. 53).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Garrity and Brown to incorporate a least recently used (LRU) cache, as disclosed by Riga, thereby obtaining the benefits of LRU memory organization techniques, namely improved performance and reduced latency.
Regarding Claim(s) 12-14 and 31, such claim(s) recite substantially similar limitations as claimed in previously rejected claim(s) and, therefore, would have been obvious based upon previously rejected claim(s).
7. Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON M. BORLINGHAUS whose telephone number is (571)272-6924. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, RYAN D. DONLON can be reached at (571)270-3602. 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.
/Jason M. Borlinghaus/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692 March 24, 2026