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 .
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
This action is in response to the correspondence filed 03/24/2025.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As to claims 1, 17 and 20, the claims recite receiving confirmation of an identification (ID) verification for an already-verified character string associated with a user, the verified character string comprising a plurality of numbers associated with a phone number of a user device; determining, based on the phone number, a verification of ID data associated with the user by obtaining the ID data from a data provider entity; obtaining credit profile data associated with the user from a credit profile entity based on the ID data; and providing, based on obtaining the credit profile data, an ID credit check confirmation associated with the ID data and phone number associated with the user.
The limitation of “determining, based on the phone number, a verification of ID data associated with the user by obtaining the ID data from a data provider entity,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a “processor”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind with logical inference.
If claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls in the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The additional limitations of the claim including “receiving confirmation of an identification (ID) verification for an already-verified character string associated with a user…” “obtaining credit profile data associated with the user…” and “providing, based on obtaining the credit profile data, an ID credit check confirmation associated with the ID data and phone number associated with the user” are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The “receiving” and “obtaining” limitations as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, are merely data gathering. Further the limitation of “providing” is instructions to apply the exception and constitute insignificant extra solution activity rather than a meaningful application, while the “processor” performs conventional operations that are well-known, routine, and conventional that does not amount to significantly more.
Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
As to claims 2-16, 18 and 19, the claims do not cure the deficiency of claims 1, 17 and 20 and are rejected under 35 USC § 101 for their dependency upon claims 1, 17 and 20 while not integrating the abstract idea into practical application or including elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3, 6-11, 14, 16, 17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 11,625,704 B2 to Miller et al. (hereinafter Miller) in view of US 20190114613 A1 to Chen et al. (hereinafter Chen).
As to claims 1, 17 and 20, Miller teaches a computer-implemented method comprising: at an electronic device having a processor: receiving confirmation of an identification (ID) verification for a character string associated with a user (Col 5, lines 43-63, received response from the mobile device after the URL was sent to the phone number of the user’s device [Col 3, lines 27-45]), the character string comprising a plurality of numbers associated with a phone number of a user device (Col 3, lines 27-31, telephone number associated with the mobile device); determining, based on the phone number, a verification of ID data associated with the user by obtaining the ID data from a data provider entity (Col 5, line 54 to Col 6, line 11, authentication of the customer); obtaining credit profile data associated with the user from a credit profile entity based on the ID data (Col 7, lines 30-67, obtained customer information used for determining credit eligibility); and providing, based on obtaining the credit profile data, an ID credit check confirmation associated with the ID data and phone number associated with the user (Col 8, lines 24-33, payment barcode provided when the credit application is approved which may include an approval page read as confirmation).
Miller does not explicitly teach an already-verified character string.
However, Chen teaches the use of an already-verified character string (paragraphs 7 and 19, a short-message verification code sent from the short message service module to a client's mobile phone when a client registers on the mobile phone system APP, wherein the phone number is already-verified during registration by the user).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Miller to include the registration process taught by Chen in order to determine the authenticity of the mobile phone number filled out by the client and ensure that the user is performing the operations personally, thus optimizing the overall security of the system (paragraph 20).
As to claims 3 and 19, Miller teaches wherein determining the verification of ID data associated with the user is verified comprises receiving a first selection that confirms the displayed portion of the ID data associated with the user is verified via an application window of an ID verification user interface (Col 8, lines 1-15, displayed electronic credit application to the customer in which the customer views and may require input of data then submits).
As to claim 6, Chen teaches determining, via a fraud detection module, whether the verification of the ID data associated with the user is likely to be fraudulent based on historical data and real-time data associated with the user (paragraph 64, The network shield module is used to learn whether the client is a deceiver, for example, whether the client is involved in an abnormal loan, a risk of losing credit, or a loan strategy. The loan strategy may include, for example, the client's fraudulent data, being blacklisted by what kind of financing institutions, and a geographical location where the client is.).
As to claim 7, Chen teaches wherein the credit profile data is obtained via a credit report application program interface (API) platform (paragraph 63, The third-party service module 71 is provided with a network shield module, a law summarizing module, a positioning module, an individual credit rating FICO module, and a K780 module working collaboratively. The third-party service module 71 obtains the client's credit rating score based on synthesis, and sends it to the uniform interface module 42 to assess whether the client's credit is good).
As to claim 8, Chen teaches determining, via a fraud detection module, whether the obtained credit data associated with the user from the credit profile entity is likely to be fraudulent based on historical data and real-time data associated with the user (paragraph 64, The network shield module is used to learn whether the client is a deceiver, for example, whether the client is involved in an abnormal loan, a risk of losing credit, or a loan strategy. The loan strategy may include, for example, the client's fraudulent data, being blacklisted by what kind of financing institutions, and a geographical location where the client is.).
As to claim 9, Miller teaches determining a prequalification status for the user based on the obtained credit profile data (Col 8, lines 16-18).
As to claim 10, Miller teaches wherein determining the prequalification status for the user comprises a credit prequalification determination using a prequalification engine and based on at least one a shop-by-payment service, a get prequalified service, or a single-product prequalification service (Col 6, lines 47-55, In block 380 (see FIG. 7), the apply website 138 (see FIGS. 1 and 9-12) sends an eligibility request 382 to the device authentication service 154 (see FIG. 1) implemented by the authentication computing device(s) 150. By way of a non-limiting example, if the device authentication service 154 (see FIG. 1) is Payfone, the apply website 138 (see FIGS. 1 and 9-12) may use an API “/eligibility” to request and receive eligibility from the device authentication service 154 (see FIG. 1)).
As to claim 11, Miller teaches wherein the prequalification engine is configured to ingest a plurality of user-based credit rates, a plurality of credit rules from a plurality of credit providers, and guidelines to determine credit qualifications for a plurality of users. (Col 6, lines 55-67, The eligibility request 382 may include the mobile telephone number, a version, an access token, an accept field, a request ID generated by the apply website 138 (see FIGS. 1 and 9-12), and a minimum trust score. The minimum trust score may be determined based on the path field. For example, the minimum trust score may be assigned a first value (e.g., 300) when the path field stores the green value and a second value (e.g., 500) when the path field stores the yellow value. The second value may be larger than the first value. The apply website 138 (see FIGS. 1 and 9-12) may use the token service 160 (see FIG. 1) implemented by the authentication computing device(s) 150 to obtain the access token; Col 8, lines 8-11, 1. Last four numbers of the social security number (“SSN”) of the customer 122; 2. The date of birth of the customer 122; and 3. Annual net income of the customer 122.).
As to claim 14, Miller teaches determining the net valuation for an item owned by the user based on the obtained credit profile data (Col 4, lines 12-19, In block 260 (see FIG. 2), the customer 122 uses the scanner 112 to scan the item(s) 128 and initiates checkout on the SCO device 110. Thus, in block 260 (see FIG. 2), the SCO device 110 receives identifications of the item(s) 128, looks up an associated price for each of the item(s) 128, and determines a total transaction price. By way of a non-limiting example, the SCO device 110 may look up the prices using the retail computing system 108).
As to claim 16, Chen teaches wherein obtaining the ID data associated with a user from the data provider entity is based on a reverse phone lookup application program interface (API) service (paragraph 16, The K780 module is used to collect a mobile phone number, an identification IP address, an identity card number and a short URL provided by the client, then provide an inquiry service, and provide a short URL shortening service and a two-dimensional code generating service; paragraph 81, the client clicks on a short-message sending button on the screen via the Fintech mobile phone system APP 11, such that the short message service module 51 sends the loan verification code to the mobile phone corresponding to the mobile phone number filled out by client).
Claims 2 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller in view of Chen in further view of US 20210350891 A1 to Dods et al. (hereinafter Dods).
As to claims 2 and 18, Miller teaches wherein the ID verification for the verified character string associated with the user is determined by: receiving an ID verification request from a user device associated with the user via an application window of an ID verification user interface (Col 3, lines 14-26 and FIG. 3, initiation of the credit application process via the interface); receiving input of a first character string at an input field via the application window of the ID verification user interface, the first character string comprising the plurality of numbers associated with the phone number of the user device (Col 3, lines 27-39 and FIG. 4; input of the telephone number); Chen teaches providing a passcode to the user device based on the first character string (paragraphs 7 and 19, a short-message verification code sent from the short message service module to a client's mobile phone); receiving input of a second character string at an input field via the application window of the ID verification user interface, the second character string comprising one or more characters (paragraph 45, received verification code); and determining the verified character string based on matching the second character string to the passcode (paragraph 45verifies the loan verification code is correct).
Miller and Chen do not explicitly teach the passcode being a one-time passcode.
However, Dods teaches the passcode being a one-time passcode (paragraph 66 and 264, one-time code sent to phone number).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Miller and Chen to include the one-time code verification method taught by Dods in order to prevent the use of a lost or stolen code to access secure data, thus optimizing the overall security of the system.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller in view of Chen in further view of US 20230125983 A1 to Baker et al. (hereinafter Baker).
As to claim 4, Miller and Chen do not explicitly teach wherein determining the verification of ID data associated with the user is verified comprises: receiving a second selection that confirms the displayed portion of the ID data associated with the user is not verified via the application window of an ID verification user interface; displaying one or more additional user verification input fields via the application window of the ID verification user interface; receiving input of a third character string at the one or more additional user verification input fields via the application window of the ID verification user interface, the second character string comprising a plurality of characters or numbers associated with an address; and determining that the input of a third character string at the one or more additional user verification input fields confirms that the user is verified.
However, Baker teaches wherein determining the verification of ID data associated with the user is verified comprises: receiving a second selection that confirms the displayed portion of the ID data associated with the user is not verified via the application window of an ID verification user interface; displaying one or more additional user verification input fields via the application window of the ID verification user interface; receiving input of a third character string at the one or more additional user verification input fields via the application window of the ID verification user interface, the second character string comprising a plurality of characters or numbers associated with an address; and determining that the input of a third character string at the one or more additional user verification input fields confirms that the user is verified (paragraph 42, a user can provide a user input 112 that indicates that the comprehension data is incorrect. The machine learning model 116 can then regenerate the comprehension data and receive further feedback from the user indicative of whether the regenerated comprehension data is correct. Alternatively, or in addition, the user input 112 can include edits made by the user to the comprehension data to better describe the intent or context of the free-form data 104. The machine learning model 116 can receive the edits to the comprehension data and learn from the edits how to better generate the comprehension data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Miller and Chen to include the data verification method taught by Baker in order to prevent the use of invalid data while allowing the user to input correct data, thus optimizing the overall efficiency, accuracy and integrity of the system.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller in view of Chen in further view of US 20240086567 A1 to Garg et al. (hereinafter Garg).
As to claim 12, Miller and Chen do not explicitly teach wherein the prequalification engine determines credit qualifications for the plurality of users using a machine learning algorithm that is trained to predict ratings using historical rate sheets from one or more of the plurality of credit providers.
However, Garg teaches determining credit qualifications for the plurality of users using a machine learning algorithm that is trained to predict ratings using historical rate sheets from one or more of the plurality of credit providers (paragraphs 70 and 71, credit amount prediction event utilizing machine learning models).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Miller and Chen to include the machine learning models for predicting credit qualifications as taught by Garg in order to automatically improve the credit determination process through experience based on use of data, thus optimizing the overall efficiency and accuracy of the system (paragraph 34).
As to claim 13, Garg teaches wherein the prequalification engine determines credit qualifications for the plurality of users using a machine learning algorithm that is trained to predict rates using historical data of rates granted to other users by one or more of the plurality of credit providers along with historical credit profile data for those users (paragraphs 70 and 71, credit amount prediction event utilizing machine learning models).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller in view of Chen in further view of US 20200372574 A1 to Sundaram et al. (hereinafter Sundaram).
As to claim 15, Miller and Chen do not explicitly teach wherein determining the net valuation for an item owned by the user comprises a credit-enhanced valuation using a trade-in equity engine and based on a credit-enhanced trade-in equity valuation service.
However, Sundaram teaches determining the net valuation for an item owned by the user comprises a credit-enhanced valuation using a trade-in equity engine and based on a credit-enhanced trade-in equity valuation service (paragraph 50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Miller and Chen to include a credit-enhanced valuation using a trade-in equity engine as taught by Sundaram in order to increase the accuracy of the factors used to determine the credit qualification, thus optimizing the overall integrity and efficiency of the system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Dependent claim 5 is allowable over the prior art of record, including Miller, Chen, Baker and the remaining references cited by the Examiner, taken individually or in combination, because the prior art of record fails to particularly disclose, fairly suggest or render obvious determining that the input of the third character string at the one or more additional user verification input fields confirms that the user is verified comprises receiving a third selection that confirms a display of the input of the second character string at the one or more additional user verification input fields is verified via the application window of the ID verification user interface, in view of the other limitations of claim 1 and intervening claim 4, as to claim 5.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MALCOLM CRIBBS whose telephone number is (571)270-1566. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 930a-330p; 430p-630p.
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, Eleni Shiferaw can be reached at (571)272-3867. 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.
MALCOLM . CRIBBS
Examiner
Art Unit 2497
/MALCOLM CRIBBS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2497
Prosecution Insights