DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in reply to application no. 19/234,122, filed 10 June 2025 with a preliminary amendment filed 18 September 2025. Claim 1 has been cancelled. Claims 2-21 are pending and are considered below.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 2-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,954,731 (hereafter “reference patent”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the independent claims of the present application are broader than those of the reference patent, as shown by the table below, in which identical details of the claim steps are omitted for brevity.
Reference Patent - Claim 1
Present Application - Claim 2
Obtain raw tradeline data
Obtain raw tradeline data
Access certain of the data
Access certain of the data
Designate lowest common denominators
Designate lowest common denominators
Generate test tradeline data
Generate leveled tradeline data
Measure a correlation
Measure a correlation
Adjust characteristics to meet a threshold
Repeat the last three steps until threshold met
Based on a determination, identify characteristics
Based on a determination, identify characteristics
Generate a leveled attribute
Generate a leveled attribute
Aside from being broader, the only difference between the claims is labeling data as “test tradeline data” or “leveled tradeline data”; without more, this is mere labeling, of no patentable significance. The other independent claims are related in exactly the same way; as can be seen, the claims of the present application are identical to those of the reference patent except for the adjustment, iteration and labeling. The dependent claims are identical or slight and patentably indistinct variants of those of the reference patent.
Conclusion
There is no rejection made herein under 35 U.S.C. § 101, 102 or 103. In regard to § 101, first, the claims are directed to statutory categories of invention, as each is directed to a method (process), system (machine) or non-transitory computer-readable medium (manufacture). Although there is a somewhat mathematical bent to the claims, it is clear that the claimed process is not one that could practically be performed in the human mind. As the claims only nominally recite credit information - it is simply a type of information on which the process is performed - and the process itself does not fall into the mathematical or mental process categories, the claims do not actually recite an abstract idea as that term is used in our Guidance (see MPEP §§ 2103- 2107(c)).
Simply using, as input, data which may be abstract is not sufficient to say that the claims "set forth or describe" an abstract idea. Therefore no rejection is made on this basis.
In regard to the state of the art at the time of the invention - pre-AIA language, because these claims have priority to October 2006 - Lewis (U.S. Publication No. 2003/0064354) discloses a curriculum system [title] which compares a "raw score" to "performance level correlation tables". [0059] It refers nondescriptly to "credits", [e.g. 0065] but it is clear from the context that the term here refers to academic credits and not tradeline credit.
Lee (U.S. Publication No. 2004/0148233) discloses a double-entry bookkeeping system [title] that supports "journal formation for multiple transactions", [claim 3] and performs a "test" to ensure that entries have been properly recorded when creating one or more new transaction records. [claim 4]
Hibbert et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2006/0074793) disclose a transaction management system [title] which generates a "fraud scoring request" that includes "required loan level data stored in [a] loan tracking system". [0096] It generates "loan- level pricing and risk data". [0072] But none of these, alone or combined, teach or suggest all of the limitations of the present claims, in particular the use of test data and determining that a correlation measurement meets a threshold involving data related to tradeline credit, in combination with the other elements of the present claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT C ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7442. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 to 5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bennett Sigmond can be reached at (303) 297-4411. 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.
/SCOTT C ANDERSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694
Prosecution Insights