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 February 10, 2025.
Claim(s) 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made Non-Final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 1-20 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 a user;
identifying, [by the computing system,] a user device as a source of the request;
initiating, [by the computing system,] an interactive communication session [with the user device] based on identifying 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 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 user based on the iterative process [to the user device] and storing the updated term [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;
select a prompt from a plurality of prompts, the selected prompt configured to illicit a user input [from a user device associated with a user,] the user input associated with revising the commitment;
continue to select at least one subsequent prompt from the plurality of prompts until [the processing circuit] determines that a received user input regarding a modified commitment included within the at least one subsequent prompt satisfies a predefined confidence threshold; and
transmit an indication including the modified commitment 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, and user device 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, and a user device. 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,] an interactive communication session with a user operating a 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;
determining, [by the computing system,] that the reply regarding the proposed revision satisfies a predefined confidence threshold;
modifying, [by the computing system,] one or more commitments based on the proposed revision; and
transmitting, [by the computing system,] an agreement including the modified one or more commitments 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 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 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 20240029153) in view of Showalter (US 20110270779).
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 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…”)
initiating, by the computing system, an interactive communication session with the user device based on identifying 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 user based on the iterative process to the user device and storing the updated term 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 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 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chirehdast/Zurick/Li/Showalter in view of Rakowicz (US 2005/0177389).
Regarding claim(s) 5:
The combination of Chirehdast/Zurick/Li/Showalter, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Rakowicz further teaches:
receiving, by the computing system, an authorization credential regarding the user at a third-party. (Rakowicz: pgh 170, “A method of executing an electronic document by utilizing an electronic agent or a software agent to automatically sign an electronic document for a third party”)
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/Showalter to include the teachings of Rakowicz because it “facilitates digital signing of documents…” (Rakowicz: pgh 11).
.
Regarding claim(s) 6:
The combination of Chirehdast/Zurick/Li/Showalter/Rakowicz, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 5. Li further teaches:
receiving, by the computing system, information from a third-party system associated with the third-party regarding the user; and (Li: pgh 23, “Many countries have third party services that may provide details about the merchant’s credit history…”)
updating, by the computing system, the determined confidence based on the information from the third-party system. (Li: pgh 101, “The changes to the portfolio performance may be used to adjust a confidence threshold higher or lower, based on performance of the overall portfolio. Similarly, the changes to individual loans may cause the underwriting algorithm to adjust the confidence calculation for future loans.”)
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/Showalter/Rakowicz 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).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chirehdast/Zurick/Li/Showalter in view of Friedman(US 2005/0278246).
Regarding claim(s) 7:
The combination of Chirehdast/Zurick/Li/Showalter, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Friedman further teaches:
monitoring, by the computing system, the user having the commitment; and (Friedman: pgh 98, “The present ASP platform according to the present invention accomplishes the foregoing and handles, for multiple customers’ use of the system, the system’s administrative needs such as network administration, maintenance, equipment upgrades, support, monitoring, backup, and contingency planning.”)
based on a determination of a delinquent event associated with the user, initiating, by the computing system, the interactive communication session with the user device to resolve the delinquent event. (Friedman: pgh 99, “To use subscription software, ASP subscribers log onto the system remotely from their own terminals, giving them access to data, delinquent-loan-case assessment-based on pre-defined subscriber parameters…”)
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/Showalter to include the teachings of Friedman to “…to derive appropriate loss mitigation solutions in real-time that adheres to frequently changing industry compliance standards…” (Friedman: pgh 20).
Claims 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chirehdast/Zurick/Li/Showalter in view of Chaturvedi (WO 2019089550).
Regarding claim(s) 9:
The combination of Chirehdast/Zurick/Li/Showalter, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Chaturvedi further teaches:
wherein the predefined confidence threshold is one of a qualitative threshold or a quantitative threshold. (Chaturvedi: pgh 51, “Determining a confidence level and comparing the confidence level to a threshold may use a confidence level that is quantitative in nature.”; pgh 52, “Alternatively, the confidence level and threshold may be non-quantitative in nature and may be represented by non-quantitative mechanisms.”)
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/Showalter to include the teachings of Chaturvedi to “improve the function of the monitored assets” (Chaturvedi: pgh 1).
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).
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; (Chirehdast: col 4, lines 60-65, “…the customer or applicant must be given the opportunity to establish a new account via the mobile app…”)
Chirehdast does not teach, however, Zurick teaches:
select a prompt from a plurality of prompts, the selected prompt configured to illicit a user input from a user device associated with a 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.”)
continue to select at least one subsequent prompt from the plurality of prompts until the processing circuit… (Zurick: pgh 41, “The Counseling Dialog Rules include a series of if/then statements and other rules that regulate conversations created using a chatbot or similar program or platform.”)
transmit an indication including the modified commitment 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 a 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).
Regarding claim(s) 11:
The combination of Chirehdast/Zurick/Li, 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 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, 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 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, 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 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 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, 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 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, 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, 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 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).
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chirehdast (US 8,660,943) in view of Li (US 20240029153) in view of Rakowicz (US 20050177389) in view of Zurick (US 2019/0295163).
Regarding claim(s) 17:
Chirehdast teaches:
initiating, by a computing system, an interactive communication session with a user operating a user device; (Chirehdast: col 42, lines 35-40, “…the lender can implement the offer online in an interactive session…”)
Chirehdast does not teach, however, Li teaches:
determining, by the computing system, that the reply regarding the proposed revision satisfies a predefined confidence threshold; (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 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/Li does not teach, however, Rakowicz teaches:
transmitting, by the computing system, an agreement including the modified one or more commitments to the user device of the user. (Rakowicz: pgh 12, “Preferably, the present invention is directed towards a secure system, software program, and method for generating electronic documents…”)
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 to include the teachings of Li because Rakowicz because it “facilitates digital signing of documents…” (Rakowicz: pgh 11). Chirehdast/Li/Rakowicz does not teach, however, Zurick teaches:
modifying, by the computing system, one or more commitments based on the proposed revision; and (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.”)
providing, by the computing system, a chat bot that provides a prompt and receives a reply during the interactive communication session; (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.”)
receiving, by the chat bot of the computing system, a request associated with a commitment of the user associated with the computing system; (Zurick: pgh 52, “The chatbot advises the borrower of available repayment options, and records and transmits the borrower’s preferences and/or selections.”)
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; (Zurick: pgh 52, “A borrower’s immediate needs are identified through a series of questions posed by the chatbot and answered by the borrower.”)
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/Rakowicz 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) 18:
The combination of Chirehdast/Li/Rakowicz/Zurick, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 17. Rakowicz further teaches:
receiving, by the computing system, a user signature in response to the transmitted agreement. (Rakowicz: pgh 39, “Once all pages are viewed, the electronic document hash is computed and encrypted with the borrower’s private key (the signature).”)
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/Zurick to include the teachings of Rakowicz because it “facilitates digital signing of documents…” (Rakowicz: pgh 11).
Regarding claim(s) 19:
The combination of Chirehdast/Li/Rakowicz/Zurick, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 17. Zurick further teaches:
transmitting, by the computing system during the interactive communication session, one or more links associated with a settlement channel and initiating settlement associated with the agreement based on receiving a selection of the one or more links. (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/Rakowicz 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).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chirehdast/Li/Rakowicz/Zurick in view of Chaturvedi (WO 2019089550).
Regarding claim(s) 20:
The combination of Chirehdast/Li/Rakowicz/Zurick, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 17. Chaturvedi further teaches:
wherein the predefined confidence threshold is one of a qualitative threshold or a quantitative threshold. (Chaturvedi: pgh 51, “Determining a confidence level and comparing the confidence level to a threshold may use a confidence level that is quantitative in nature.”; pgh 52, “Alternatively, the confidence level and threshold may be non-quantitative in nature and may be represented by non-quantitative mechanisms.”)
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/Rakowicz/Zurick to include the teachings of Chaturvedi to “improve the function of the monitored assets” (Chaturvedi: pgh 1).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN O PRESTON whose telephone number is (571)270-3918. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, MICHAEL ANDERSON can be reached on 571-270-0508. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOHN O PRESTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3698
April 4, 2026
/Mike Anderson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3693