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 July 8, 2026.
Claims 1, 10, and 17-18 are amended.
Claim(s) 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made Final.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argued that Examiner’s 101 rejection was improper because independent claims 1, 10, and 17 are not directed toward an abstract idea. Examiner disagrees. Applicant’s claimed invention recites a method and apparatus for facilitating communications with a user to determine the terms of an agreement, which is an abstract idea. The additional elements, both individually and in combination with the abstract idea, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, Examiner finds Applicant’s argument non-persuasive.
Applicant argued that Examiner’s 101 rejection was improper because independent claims 1, 10, and 17 integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Examiner disagrees. Independent claims 1, 10, and 17 do not integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to significantly more than an abstract idea because the additional elements identified in the claim limitations are merely used as tools to implement the abstract idea, which is not indicative of an integration of the abstract idea into a practical application or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Therefore, Examiner finds Applicant’s argument non-persuasive.
Applicant argued that the prior art does not teach or suggest “identifying…a user device as a source of the request,” and “initiating…an interactive communication session with [a] user device based on identifying the user device”. Examiner disagrees. The Chirehdast reference teaches or suggests “identifying…a user device as a source of the request,” (Chirehdast: col 4, lines 60-65) and “initiating…an interactive communication session with [a] user device based on identifying the user device” (Chirehdast: col 42, lines 35-40). Therefore, Examiner finds Applicant’s argument non-persuasive.
Applicant argued that the prior art does not teach or suggest “receiving…a request regarding a commitment associated with an existing agreement of a user”. Examiner disagrees. The Chirehdast reference teaches or suggests “receiving…a request regarding a commitment associated with an existing agreement of a user” (Chirehdast: col 46, lines 40-50). Therefore, Examiner finds Applicant’s argument non-persuasive.
Applicant argued that the prior art does not teach or suggest “generating and providing,…based on [a] first reply, a second prompt in the interactive communication session,” where “the second prompt includes a second question regarding a modified commitment based on the first reply to the first prompt” and “the second prompt is determined via a reinforcement learning model trained to optimize a user confidence in satisfying the modified commitment.” Examiner disagrees. The Zurick reference teaches or suggests “generating and providing,…based on [a] first reply, a second prompt in the interactive communication session,” where “the second prompt includes a second question regarding a modified commitment based on the first reply to the first prompt” and “the second prompt is determined via a reinforcement learning model trained to optimize a user confidence in satisfying the modified commitment.” (Zurick: pgh 52). Therefore, Examiner finds Applicant’s argument non-persuasive.
Applicant argued that the prior art does not teach or suggest “iteratively repeating the processes of generating a prompt via the reinforcement learning model receiving a reply to the prompt, analyzing the reply according to [a] machine learning model to determine the confidence of the user, and comparing the confidence to the predefined confidence threshold until a determined confidence of the user meets or exceeds [a] predefined confidence threshold” as recited in amended claim 1. Examiner disagrees. The Zurick and Li references teach or suggest “iteratively repeating the processes of generating a prompt via the reinforcement learning model receiving a reply to the prompt, analyzing the reply according to [a] machine learning model to determine the confidence of the user, and comparing the confidence to the predefined confidence threshold until a determined confidence of the user meets or exceeds [a] predefined confidence threshold” (Zurick: pgh 52 and Li: pgh 38). Therefore, Examiner finds Applicant’s argument non-persuasive.
Applicant argued that the prior art does not teach or suggest “analyzing,…according to a machine learning model, [a] first reply and [a] second reply to determine a confidence of the user in satisfying the modified commitment,” or where the “machine learning model is trained via supervised learning using historical reply data and historic actual performance data associated with a population of similarly situated users as the user” as recited in amended claim 1. Examiner disagrees. The Showalter reference teaches or suggests “analyzing,…according to a machine learning model, [a] first reply and [a] second reply to determine a confidence of the user in satisfying the modified commitment,” or where the “machine learning model is trained via supervised learning using historical reply data and historic actual performance data associated with a population of similarly situated users as the user” (Showalter: pgh 39). Therefore, Examiner finds Applicant’s argument non-persuasive.
In light of Applicant’s arguments and amendments, Examiner has concluded that the motivation to combine the references would not have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for claims 5-6, 7, 9, and 17-20. Therefore, Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claims 5-6, 7, 9, and 17-20 under 35 USC 103.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1-20 are directed to a system, method, or product, which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Claim 1 recites the following limitations:
[A computer-implemented method for an interactive communication session, comprising:] receiving, [by a computing system,] a request regarding a commitment associated with an existing agreement of a user;
identifying, [by the computing system,] a user device as a source of the request;
initiating, [by the computing system] and based on the identification of the user device, an interactive communication session [with the user device];
generating, [by the computing system,] a first prompt for inclusion in the interactive communication session, wherein the first prompt includes a first question regarding an expected duration of a hardship of the user;
providing, [by the computing system,] the first prompt in the interactive communication session such that the first prompt is provided [via the user device];
receiving, [by the computing system,] a first reply to the first prompt from the interactive communication session;
generating and providing, [by the computing system and] based on the first reply, a second prompt in the interactive communication session, wherein the second prompt includes a second question regarding a modified commitment based on the first reply to the first prompt, and wherein the second prompt is determined [via a reinforcement learning model trained to optimize a user confidence] in satisfying the modified commitment;
receiving, [by the computing system,] a second reply to the second prompt from the interactive communication session;
analyzing, [by the computing system and according to a machine learning model,] the first reply and the second reply to determine a confidence of the user in satisfying the modified commitment, wherein the machine learning model is trained via supervised learning using historical reply data and historic actual performance data associated with a population of similarly situated users as the user;
comparing, [by the computing system,] the confidence to a predefined confidence threshold;
iteratively repeating the processes of generating a prompt [via the reinforcement learning model,] receiving a reply to the prompt, analyzing the reply [according to the machine learning model] to determine the confidence of the user, and comparing the confidence to the predefined confidence threshold until a determined confidence of the user meets or exceeds the predefined confidence threshold; and
transmitting, [by the computing system,] an updated term for the existing agreement of the user based on the iterative process [to the user device] and storing the updated term for the existing agreement [in a memory of the computing system].
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity because the limitations recite commercial interactions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a commercial interaction, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The computing system, user device, reinforcement learning model, machine learning model, and memory in Claim 1 are just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of a computing system, a user device, a reinforcement learning model, a machine learning model, and memory. The computer hardware/software is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, these additional elements do not change the outcome of the analysis when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Thus, claim 1 is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Claim 10 recites the following limitations:
[An apparatus for an interactive communication session, the apparatus comprising: a processing circuit comprising a processor and a memory coupled to the processor, the memory containing instructions therein that, when executed by the processor, cause the processing circuit to:]
receive a request associated with a commitment associated with an existing agreement of a user;
initiate, based on an identification [of a user device associated with a user] as being a source of the request, the interactive communication session [with the user device];
select a prompt from a plurality of prompts, the selected prompt configured to illicit a user input during the interactive communication session and [from a user device associated with the user,] the user input associated with revising the commitment;
select at least one subsequent prompt from the plurality of prompts, wherein the at least one subsequent prompt is determined [via a reinforcement learning model trained to optimize a user confidence] in satisfying a modified commitment;
analyze, [according to a machine learning model], a reply to the prompt and a reply to the at least one subsequent prompt to determine a confidence of the user in satisfying the modified commitment, wherein [the machine learning model] is trained via supervised learning using historical reply data and historical actual performance data associated with a population of similarly situated users as the user;
iteratively repeating the processes of selecting at least one subsequent prompt [via the reinforcement learning model] and analyzing the reply [according to the machine learning model] to determine a confidence of the user until [the processing circuit] determines that a received user input regarding the modified commitment included within the at least one subsequent prompt satisfies a predefined confidence threshold; and
transmit an indication including the modified commitment for the existing agreement [to the user device].
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity because the limitations recite commercial interactions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a commercial interaction, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The processor, memory, user device, reinforcement learning model, and machine learning model in Claim 10 are just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of a processor, memory, user device, reinforcement learning model, and machine learning model. The computer hardware/software is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, claim 10 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, these additional elements do not change the outcome of the analysis when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Thus, claim 10 is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Claim 17 recites the following limitations:
initiating, [by a computing system and based on an identification [of a user device] as a source of a request,] an interactive communication session with a user operating [the user device];
providing, [by the computing system, a chat bot that provides] a prompt and receives a reply during the interactive communication session;
receiving, [by the chat bot of the computing system,] a request associated with a commitment of the user associated with [the computing system];
iteratively proposing and receiving, [by the chat bot of the computing system,] a proposed revision to the commitment and a reply to the proposed revision to the commitment, wherein the proposed revision is determined [via a reinforcement learning model trained to optimize a user confidence] in satisfying the proposed revision to the commitment;
determining, [by the computing system,] that the reply regarding the proposed revision satisfies a predefined confidence threshold, wherein the reply is analyzed [using a machine learning model] to determine a confidence of the user regarding the proposed revision satisfies the predetermined confidence threshold, and wherein [the machine learning model] is trained via supervised learning using historical reply data and historic actual performance data associated with a population of similarly situated users as the user;
modifying, [by the computing system,] one or more commitments based on the proposed revision; and
iteratively repeating the processes of proposing a revision to the commitment [via the reinforcement learning model], receiving a reply to the proposed revision, and analyzing the reply [according to the machine learning model] to determine the confidence of the user until the determined confidence of the user meets or exceeds the predefined confidence threshold; and
transmitting, [by the computing system,] the modified one or more commitments for an existing agreement of the user [to the user device of the user].
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity because the limitations recite commercial interactions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a commercial interaction, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The computing system, user device, reinforcement learning model, machine learning model, and chat bot in Claim 17 are just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of a computing system, a user device, a reinforcement learning model, a machine learning model, and a chat bot. The computer hardware/software is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, claim 17 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, these additional elements do not change the outcome of the analysis when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Thus, claim 17 is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims
Dependent claim 2 further defines the abstract idea that is present in independent claim 1 and thus corresponds to certain methods of organizing human activity and hence is abstract for the reasons presented above. Dependent claim 1 includes a computing system. However, the computing system does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, dependent claim 2 is directed to an abstract idea. Thus, claim 2 is not patent-eligible.
Dependent claim 3 further defines the abstract idea that is present in independent claim 1 and thus corresponds to certain methods of organizing human activity and hence is abstract for the reasons presented above. Dependent claim 3 does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, dependent claim 3 is directed to an abstract idea. Thus, claim 3 is not patent-eligible.
Dependent claim 4 further defines the abstract idea that is present in independent claim 1 and thus corresponds to certain methods of organizing human activity and hence is abstract for the reasons presented above. Dependent claim 4 includes a computing system. However, the computing system does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, dependent claim 4 is directed to an abstract idea. Thus, claim 4 is not patent-eligible.
Dependent claim 5 further defines the abstract idea that is present in independent claim 1 and thus corresponds to certain methods of organizing human activity and hence is abstract for the reasons presented above. Dependent claim 5 includes a computing system. However, the computing system does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, dependent claim 5 is directed to an abstract idea. Thus, claim 5 is not patent-eligible.
Dependent claim 6 further defines the abstract idea that is present in independent claim 1 and thus corresponds to certain methods of organizing human activity and hence is abstract for the reasons presented above. Dependent claim 6 includes a computing system. However, the computing system does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, dependent claim 6 is directed to an abstract idea. Thus, claim 6 is not patent-eligible.
Dependent claim 7 further defines the abstract idea that is present in independent claim 1 and thus corresponds to certain methods of organizing human activity and hence is abstract for the reasons presented above. Dependent claim 7 includes a computing system. However, the computing system does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, dependent claim 7 is directed to an abstract idea. Thus, claim 7 is not patent-eligible.
Dependent claim 8 further defines the abstract idea that is present in independent claim 1 and thus corresponds to certain methods of organizing human activity and hence is abstract for the reasons presented above. Dependent claim 8 does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, dependent claim 8 is directed to an abstract idea. Thus, claim 8 is not patent-eligible.
Dependent claim 9 further defines the abstract idea that is present in independent claim 1 and thus corresponds to certain methods of organizing human activity and hence is abstract for the reasons presented above. Dependent claim 9 does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, dependent claim 9 is directed to an abstract idea. Thus, claim 9 is not patent-eligible.
Dependent claim 11 further defines the abstract idea that is present in independent claim 10 and thus corresponds to certain methods of organizing human activity and hence is abstract for the reasons presented above. Dependent claim 11 includes a processor and processing circuit. However, the processor and processing circuit does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, dependent claim 11 is directed to an abstract idea. Thus, claim 11 is not patent-eligible.
Dependent claim 12 further defines the abstract idea that is present in independent claim 10 and thus corresponds to certain methods of organizing human activity and hence is abstract for the reasons presented above. Dependent claim 12 does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, dependent claim 12 is directed to an abstract idea. Thus, claim 12 is not patent-eligible.
Dependent claim 13 further defines the abstract idea that is present in independent claim 10 and thus corresponds to certain methods of organizing human activity and hence is abstract for the reasons presented above. Dependent claim 13 does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, dependent claim 13 is directed to an abstract idea. Thus, claim 13 is not patent-eligible.
Dependent claim 14 further defines the abstract idea that is present in independent claim 10 and thus corresponds to certain methods of organizing human activity and hence is abstract for the reasons presented above. Dependent claim 14 includes a processor and processing circuit. However, the processor and processing circuit does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, dependent claim 14 is directed to an abstract idea. Thus, claim 14 is not patent-eligible.
Dependent claim 15 further defines the abstract idea that is present in independent claim 10 and thus corresponds to certain methods of organizing human activity and hence is abstract for the reasons presented above. Dependent claim 15 does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, dependent claim 15 is directed to an abstract idea. Thus, claim 15 is not patent-eligible.
Dependent claim 16 further defines the abstract idea that is present in independent claim 10 and thus corresponds to certain methods of organizing human activity and hence is abstract for the reasons presented above. Dependent claim 16 includes a processor and processing circuit. However, the processor and processing circuit does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, dependent claim 16 is directed to an abstract idea. Thus, claim 16 is not patent-eligible.
Dependent claim 18 further defines the abstract idea that is present in independent claim 17 and thus corresponds to certain methods of organizing human activity and hence is abstract for the reasons presented above. Dependent claim 18 includes a computing system. However, the computing system does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, dependent claim 18 is directed to an abstract idea. Thus, claim 18 is not patent-eligible.
Dependent claim 19 further defines the abstract idea that is present in independent claim 17 and thus corresponds to certain methods of organizing human activity and hence is abstract for the reasons presented above. Dependent claim 19 includes a computing system. However, the computing system does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, dependent claim 19 is directed to an abstract idea. Thus, claim 19 is not patent-eligible.
Dependent claim 20 further defines the abstract idea that is present in independent claim 17 and thus corresponds to certain methods of organizing human activity and hence is abstract for the reasons presented above. Dependent claim 20 does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, dependent claim 20 is directed to an abstract idea. Thus, claim 20 is not patent-eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chirehdast (US 8,660,943) in view of Zurick (US 2019/0295163) in view of Li (US 2024/0029153) in view of Showalter (US 2011/0270779).
Regarding claim(s) 1:
Chirehdast teaches:
A computer-implemented method for an interactive communication session, comprising: receiving, by a computing system, a request regarding a commitment associated with an existing agreement of a user; identifying, by the computing system, a user device as a source of the request; (Chirehdast: col 4, lines 60-65, “…the customer or applicant must be given the opportunity to establish a new account via the mobile app…”; col 46, lines 40-50, “To add to the problem, dealers offer a number of peripheral automotive financing products, such as but not limited to…extended vehicle warranty…”)
initiating, by the computing system and based on the identification of the user device, an interactive communication session with the user device; (Chirehdast: col 42, lines 35-40, “…the lender can implement the offer online in an interactive session…”)
providing, by the computing system, the first prompt in the interactive communication session such that the first prompt is provided via the user device; (Chirehdast: col 46, lines 1-8, “…the customer interact with the key pad…to choose the amount of cash…or other such customary prompts…”)
receiving, by the computing system, a first reply to the first prompt from the interactive communication session; (Chirehdast: col 10, lines 30-35, “The lender’s customer…is prompted by the lender…and answers ‘yes’ to the prompt.”)
Chirehdast does not teach, however, Zurick teaches:
generating, by the computing system, a first prompt for inclusion in the interactive communication session, wherein the first prompt includes a first question regarding an expected duration of a hardship of the user; (Zurick: pgh 85, “The chatbot asked is the grace borrower needed to delay/defer payment for any other reason…borrowers were presented with information and direction on exploring IDR, economic hardship deferment, and forbearance.”)
generating and providing, by the computing system and based on the first reply, a second prompt in the interactive communication session, wherein the second prompt includes a second question regarding a modified commitment based on the first reply to the first prompt, and wherein the second prompt is determined via a reinforcement learning model trained to optimize a user confidence in satisfying the modified commitment; (Zurick: pgh 52, “The chatbot of the invention uses data from the system database to refine a model conversation dialogue to provide counseling to the borrower that best meets the borrower’s needs. The chatbot advises the borrower of available repayment options…”)
receiving, by the computing system, a second reply to the second prompt from the interactive communication session; (Zurick: pgh 49, “Allow borrowers to engage chatbot in conversation through choice of available channels…”)
iteratively repeating the processes of generating a prompt via the reinforcement learning model, receiving a reply to the prompt… (Zurick: pgh 52, “A borrower’s immediate needs are identified through a series of questions posed by the chatbot and answered by the borrower.”)
transmitting, by the computing system, an updated term for the existing agreement of the user based on the iterative process to the user device and storing the updated term for the existing agreement in a memory of the computing system. (Zurick: pgh 6, “The present invention relates to a system and method for assessing one or more loans and assisting the borrower in evaluating repayment options.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Chirehdast to include the teachings of Zurick to “…accurately and correctly advise a borrower on possible repayment options in an efficient and positive manner…” (Zurick: pgh 6). Chirehdast/Zurick does not teach the remaining limitations. However, Li teaches:
…analyzing the reply according to the machine learning model to determine the confidence of the user, and comparing the confidence to the predefined confidence threshold until a determined confidence of the user meets or exceeds the predefined confidence threshold; and (Li: pgh 38, “Not only has a machine learning model proven itself to be more accurate and reliable than human underwriting, but the ability to dynamically adjust the confidence threshold for approving loans give a company much more direct control over their portfolio.”; pgh 117, “…the comparison may generate a similarity score to those loans considered ‘good’ or desirable. Such a score may be the confidence score that the loan will be repaid in the future.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Chirehdast/Zurick to include the teachings of Li to “…accurately calculate a confidence score, which may reflect a loan’s applicant’s likelihood of fully repaying a loan.” (Li: pgh 6). Chirehdast/Zurick/Li does not teach the remaining limitations. However, Showalter teaches:
analyzing, by the computing system and according to a machine learning model, the first reply and the second reply to determine a confidence of the user in satisfying the modified commitment, wherein the machine learning model is trained via supervised learning using historical reply data and historic actual performance data associated with a population of similarly situated users as the user; (Showalter: pgh 39, “The data analytics analyze key behaviors, such as a borrower’s willingness and capacity to pay…”)
comparing, by the computing system, the confidence to a predefined confidence threshold; (Showalter: pgh 46, “The system, using a machine, allows prediction for many borrowers and training of a model based on large data sets as compared to manual determination.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Chirehdast/Zurick/Li to include the teachings of Showalter because “Using machine-learning, loans or treatments best suited for a particular borrower may be determined.” (Showalter: pgh 4).
Regarding claim(s) 2:
The combination of Chirehdast/Zurick/Li/Showalter, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Chirehdast further teaches:
transmitting, by the computing system, a link for initiating settlement of a portion of the commitment. (Chirehdast: col 5, lines 20-25, “In yet another embodiment, the notice can be visible once the customer touches a link (touch screen button) on the lender’s mobile device…”)
Regarding claim(s) 3:
The combination of Chirehdast/Zurick/Li/Showalter, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Showalter further teaches:
wherein the updated term is an updated commitment amount. (Showalter: pgh 182: “The analysis assumed generic forms of loss mitigation treatment, including loan modification…”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Chirehdast/Zurick/Li to include the teachings of Showalter because “Using machine-learning, loans or treatments best suited for a particular borrower may be determined.” (Showalter: pgh 4).
Regarding claim(s) 4:
The combination of Chirehdast/Zurick/Li/Showalter, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 3. Zurick further teaches:
providing, by the computing system, one or more links associated with one or more channels associated with settlement options to the user during the interactive communication session to initiate settlement for the updated commitment amount. (Zurick: pgh 56, “The chatbot asks borrower if he/she is able to meet the repayment obligations of his/her loan, while also assuring the borrower that assistance options, including non-payment options, may be available.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Chirehdast/Li/Showalter to include the teachings of Zurick to “…accurately and correctly advise a borrower on possible repayment options in an efficient and positive manner…” (Zurick: pgh 6).
Regarding claim(s) 8:
The combination of Chirehdast/Zurick/Li/Showalter, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Chirehdast further teaches:
wherein the first reply comprises at least one of a text entry, a slider entry, or an audio entry. (Chirehdast: col 54, lines 35-45, “Sometimes, the lender requires more information or documents from the customer, which can be either sent in person, or by…text message, SMS, or smart phone/communication devices…”)
Claims 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chirehdast (US 8,660,943) in view of Zurick (US 2019/0295163) in view of Li (US 20240029153) in view of Lewis-Weber (US 2026/0171082).
Regarding claim(s) 10:
Chirehdast teaches:
a processing circuit comprising a processor and a memory coupled to the processor, the memory containing instructions therein that, when executed by the processor, cause the processing circuit to: receive a request associated with a commitment associated with an existing agreement of a user; (Chirehdast: col 4, lines 60-65, “…the customer or applicant must be given the opportunity to establish a new account via the mobile app…”; col 46, lines 40-55, “…dealers offer a number of peripheral automotive financing products, such as, but not limited to…extended vehicle warranty…life, unemployment, and other types of debt protection programs…total loss protection programs…”)
Chirehdast does not teach, however, Zurick teaches:
initiate, based on an identification of a user device associated with a user as being a source of the request, the interactive communication session with the user device; (Zurick: pgh 48, “Introduce borrower to a chatbot by sending outreach communications to the borrower…The message provided to the borrower includes borrower-specific linked keys and instructions on how to start a chat session.”)
select a prompt from a plurality of prompts, the selected prompt configured to illicit a user input during the interactive communication session and from the user device associated with the user, the user input associated with revising the commitment; (Zurick: pgh 52, “The chatbot…guides a borrower to his or her best option…This includes obtaining information from the borrower which is used to determine what options are available to reduce or delay monthly payments and evaluating whether the borrower qualifies for loan forgiveness or other options.”)
transmit an indication including the modified commitment for the existing agreement to the user device. (Zurick: pgh 6, “The present invention relates to a system and method for assessing one or more loans and assisting the borrower in evaluating repayment options.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Chirehdast to include the teachings of Zurick to “…accurately and correctly advise a borrower on possible repayment options in an efficient and positive manner…” (Zurick: pgh 6). Chirehdast/Zurick does not teach the remaining limitations. However, Li teaches:
…determines that a received user input regarding the modified commitment included within the at least one subsequent prompt satisfies a predefined confidence threshold; and (Li: pgh 128, “The mobility data from the device may be used as input to an underwriting system to approve or deny a loan.”; pgh 153, “If the confidence level is below a threshold value in block 518, the loan may be declined in block 520.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Chirehdast/Zurick to include the teachings of Li to “…accurately calculate a confidence score, which may reflect a loan applicant’s likelihood of fully repaying a loan.” (Li: pgh 6). Chirehdast/Zurick/Li does not teach the remaining limitations. However, Lewis-Weber teaches:
select at least one subsequent prompt from the plurality of prompts, wherein the at least one subsequent prompt is determined via a reinforcement learning model trained to optimize a user confidence in satisfying a modified commitment; (Lewis-Weber: pgh 48, “Examples provided herein can involve the use of machine-learning or machine-learned computer models that are trained using historical and/or real-time training data…and can comprise computer models trained using unsupervised, supervised, and/or reinforcement learning techniques.”; pgh 61, “According to examples, the voice-AI engine can initiate communications with a user in accordance with the information gathering process. For example, the voice-AI engine can make voice calls to a user for reminders, to complete an FNOL process, to perform settlement negotiations, and the like.”)
analyze, according to a machine learning model, a reply to the prompt and a reply to the at least one subsequent prompt to determine a confidence of the user in satisfying the modified commitment, wherein the machine learning model is trained via supervised learning using historical reply data and historical actual performance data associated with a population of similarly situated users as the user; (Lewis-Weber: pgh 48, “Examples provided herein can involve the use of machine-learning or machine-learned computer models that are trained using historical and/or real-time training data…and can comprise computer models trained using unsupervised, supervised, and/or reinforcement learning techniques.”; pgh 93, “In various examples, the adaptive flow engine can also communicate with the voice-AI engine to perform automated settlement negotiations with a user.”)
iteratively repeating the processes of selecting at least one subsequent prompt via the reinforcement learning model and analyzing the reply according to the machine learning model to determine a confidence of the user until the processing circuit… (Lewis-Weber: pgh 93, “The adaptive flow engine and voice-AI engine can provide an individualized negotiation experience to the user to settle a particular claim (e.g., similar to the customized reminder strategy and dynamic content flows provided to the user described herein).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Chirehdast/Zurick/Li to include the teachings of Lewis-Weber to “…provide policy providers with an efficient and streamlined claim handling process.” (Lewis-Weber: pgh 30).
Regarding claim(s) 11:
The combination of Chirehdast/Zurick/Li/Lewis-Weber, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 10. Zurick further teaches:
wherein the instructions when executed by the processor, further cause the processing circuit to receive an explicit user input regarding a confidence in their ability to satisfy a modified commitment in the prompt, analyze the explicit user input based on a characteristic of the explicit user input, and determine a modified confidence based on the analysis regarding an ability of the user to satisfy the modified commitment. (Zurick: pgh 52, “A borrower’s immediate needs are identified through a series of questions posed by the chatbot and answered by the borrower. The chatbot provides guidance and assistance to help resolve any issues the borrower may have meeting his or her current repayment obligations.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Chirehdast/Li/Lewis-Weber to include the teachings of Zurick to “…accurately and correctly advise a borrower on possible repayment options in an efficient and positive manner…” (Zurick: pgh 6).
Regarding claim(s) 12:
The combination of Chirehdast/Zurick/Li/Lewis-Weber, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 11. Zurick further teaches:
wherein the explicit user input is an audible input, and wherein the analysis includes natural language processing of the audible input to determine that a hesitancy was present in the audible input such that the determined modified confidence is less than a confidence articulated during the audible input. (Zurick: pgh 50, “The counseling dialog rules are applied using NLP and voice recognition tools that together form a verbal user interface.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Chirehdast/Li/Lewis-Weber to include the teachings of Zurick to “…accurately and correctly advise a borrower on possible repayment options in an efficient and positive manner…” (Zurick: pgh 6).
Regarding claim(s) 13:
The combination of Chirehdast/Zurick/Li/ Lewis-Weber, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 11. Li further teaches:
wherein determining that the received user input satisfied the predefined confidence threshold is based on determining a confidence value associated with the received user input… and comparing the confidence value to the predefined confidence threshold. (Li: pgh 6, “The confidence score may be compared to a threshold value to determine whether to grant or deny a loan.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Chirehdast/Zurick/Lewis-Weber to include the teachings of Li to “…accurately calculate a confidence score, which may reflect a loan’s applicant’s likelihood of fully repaying a loan.” (Li: pgh 6). Li does not teach the remaining limitation. However, Zurick teaches:
…by at least one of an optical character recognition algorithm or a natural language processing algorithm… (Zurick: pgh 51, “In one exemplary embodiment, Twilio Autopilot serves as the NLP engine and provides programmable SMS text, programmable voice and programmable chat features…”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Chirehdast/Li/Lewis-Weber to include the teachings of Zurick to “…accurately and correctly advise a borrower on possible repayment options in an efficient and positive manner…” (Zurick: pgh 6).
Regarding claim(s) 14:
The combination of Chirehdast/Zurick/Li/ Lewis-Weber, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 10. Zurick further teaches:
wherein the instructions when executed by the processor, further cause the processing circuit to transmit a link associated with a settlement channel to facilitate a settlement to a third-party. (Zurick: pgh 42, “Expected users include …third-party default prevention servicers.”; pgh 88, “All borrowers indicating a need for repayment assistance receive a follow up email with additional detail, instructions and all necessary applications (links/attachments).”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Chirehdast/Li/Lewis-Weber to include the teachings of Zurick to “…accurately and correctly advise a borrower on possible repayment options in an efficient and positive manner…” (Zurick: pgh 6).
Regarding claim(s) 15:
The combination of Chirehdast/Zurick/Li/Lewis-Weber, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 10. Chirehdast further teaches:
wherein receiving user input associated with the modified commitment comprises at least one of receiving audio data, receiving text data, or receiving a selection from a predetermined list of user inputs. wherein the first reply comprises at least one of a text entry, a slider entry, or an audio entry. (Chirehdast: col 54, lines 35-45, “Sometimes, the lender requires more information or documents from the customer, which can be either sent in person, or by…text message, SMS, or smart phone/communication devices…”)
Regarding claim(s) 16:
The combination of Chirehdast/Zurick/Li/Lewis-Weber, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 15. Zurick further teaches:
wherein the instructions when executed by the processor, further cause the processing circuit to receive audio data in response to an audio user response. (Zurick: pgh 50, “The verbal user interface allows the chatbot and the borrower to have a conversation through SMS/text, web, and/or telephony integration.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Chirehdast/Li/Lewis-Weber to include the teachings of Zurick to “…accurately and correctly advise a borrower on possible repayment options in an efficient and positive manner…” (Zurick: pgh 6).
Examiner’s Statement of Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter in claims 5-6. In light of Applicant's remarks, Examiner agrees that the cited reference(s) of Chirehdast (US 8,660,943), Zurick (US 2019/0295163), Li (US 2024/0029153), Showalter (US 2011/0270779), and Rakowicz (US 2005/0177389) do not disclose, teach, or suggest the claimed invention. Chirehdast teaches methods and systems for financial transactions. Zurick teaches an optimized loan assessment and assistance system. Li teaches a method and system for trade and mobility data-driven credit performance prediction. Showalter teaches data analytics models for loan treatment. Rakowicz teaches a paperless process for mortgage closings and other applications. However, the prior art of record fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention because the motivation to combine the prior art references would not have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. For these reasons, claims 5-6 are deemed to be allowable over the prior art of record.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter in claim 7. In light of Applicant's remarks, Examiner agrees that the cited reference(s) of Chirehdast (US 8,660,943), Zurick (US 2019/0295163), Li (US 2024/0029153), Showalter (US 2011/0270779), and Friedman(US 2005/0278246) do not disclose, teach, or suggest the claimed invention. Chirehdast teaches methods and systems for financial transactions. Zurick teaches an optimized loan assessment and assistance system. Li teaches a method and system for trade and mobility data-driven credit performance prediction. Showalter teaches data analytics models for loan treatment. Friedman teaches software solution management of problem loans. However, the prior art of record fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention because the motivation to combine the prior art references would not have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. For these reasons, claim 7 is deemed to be allowable over the prior art of record.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter in claim 9. In light of Applicant's remarks, Examiner agrees that the cited reference(s) of Chirehdast (US 8,660,943), Zurick (US 2019/0295163), Li (US 2024/0029153), Showalter (US 2011/0270779), and Chaturvedi (WO 2019089550) do not disclose, teach, or suggest the claimed invention. Chirehdast teaches methods and systems for financial transactions. Zurick teaches an optimized loan assessment and assistance system. Li teaches a method and system for trade and mobility data-driven credit performance prediction. Showalter teaches data analytics models for loan treatment. Chaturvedi teaches an automated feedback-driven prognosis system and method. However, the prior art of record fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention because the motivation to combine the prior art references would not have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. For these reasons, claim 9 is deemed to be allowable over the prior art of record.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter in claim 17-19. In light of Applicant's remarks, Examiner agrees that the cited reference(s) of Chirehdast (US 8,660,943), Li (US 20240029153), Rakowicz (US 20050177389), Zurick (US 2019/0295163) and Lewis-Weber (US 2026/0171082) do not disclose, teach, or suggest the claimed invention. Chirehdast teaches methods and systems for financial transactions. Li teaches a method and system for trade and mobility data-driven credit performance prediction. Rakowicz teaches a paperless process for mortgage closings and other applications. Zurick teaches an optimized loan assessment and assistance system. Lewis-Weber teaches a voice-based, artificial intelligence-driven flow engine. However, the prior art of record fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention because the motivation to combine the prior art references would not have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. For these reasons, claims 17-19 are deemed to be allowable over the prior art of record.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter in claim 20. In light of Applicant's remarks, Examiner agrees that the cited reference(s) of Chirehdast (US 8,660,943), Li (US 20240029153), Rakowicz (US 20050177389), Zurick (US 2019/0295163) Lewis-Weber (US 2026/0171082), and Chaturvedi (WO 2019089550) do not disclose, teach, or suggest the claimed invention. Chirehdast teaches methods and systems for financial transactions. Li teaches a method and system for trade and mobility data-driven credit performance prediction. Rakowicz teaches a paperless process for mortgage closings and other applications. Zurick teaches an optimized loan assessment and assistance system. Lewis-Weber teaches a voice-based, artificial intelligence-driven flow engine. Chaturvedi teaches an automated feedback-driven prognosis system and method. However, the prior art of record fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention because the motivation to combine the prior art references would not have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. For these reasons, claim 20 is deemed to be allowable over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. Sellers (US 2001/0044773) discloses systems and methods for automatically obtaining loss mitigation loan workout decisions.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event of a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN O PRESTON whose telephone number is (571)270-3918. The examiner can normally be reached 12:00 pm - 8:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael W Anderson can be reached on 571-270-0508. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOHN O PRESTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3693
September 2, 2026
/ELIZABETH H ROSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights