DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s response/application filed on 08/11/2026.
The Examiner notes that citations to United States Patent Application Publication paragraphs are formatted as [####], #### representing the paragraph number.
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
Claims 1, 6, 19, and 20 have been amended.
No claims have been added or canceled.
Claims 1-22 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 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(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 4, 9-15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Emswiler (US 20140040113), in view of Trevethan (US 20200313884).
Regarding claim(s) 1, 19 and 20, Emswiler discloses:
at least one processor, connected to a network ([0027] of Emswiler), and
a non-transitory medium ([0008] of Emswiler) storing program instructions for decentralized blockchain based selection of at least one response message, which, when executed by at least one processor, connected to a network, and configured to:
receiving from at least one client terminal, a total target of a functional message transmitted by said at least one client terminal over said network (By disclosing, a mitigation device of a Loan Facilitator system: "as shown in FIG. 3, the process may begin when a borrower uses his or her electronic device 10 (e.g., personal computer (PC), laptop, personal digital assistant (PDA), etc.) to access a website operated by the Loan Facilitator system 30 in order to submit a credit application, which is received by the Loan Facilitator system 30 (e.g., the Loan Facilitator server 32) at Block 301. According to one embodiment, the credit application may include information (referred to as "credit application data") sufficient for a lender to make a credit determination." See Emswiler in [0042]; interpreting the tender of the total amount of the target value as part of the selection criteria: "Examples of selection criteria can include, but are not limited to, reguested loan amount. credit score, property location, property size, requested loan type, down payment amount, dwelling unit type, current home value, available equity, monthly payment, mortgage amount, loan type (VA, FHA, conventional), loan-to-value, requested interest rate, purchase price, rate type (fixed, variable), sale date, sale type (new, resale), length of residence, telephone number, marital status, gender, age, income, presence of children, ethnicity, demographic selects, and the like. According to one embodiment, there can be zero, one, or a plurality of lenders matched to a borrower's credit application." ([0045] of Emswiler));
transmitting said functional message over said network to a plurality of responding client terminals; receiving over said network, from the plurality of responding client terminals, a plurality of response messages each comprising a partial or complete contribution toward satisfying the functional message (By disclosing, the partial value at the requested interest rate as the Best Offer: "In particular, according to one embodiment, upon receipt of the credit application data and credit score, the matched lender may, either itself (i.e., a processor executing on the matched lender server) or via a third party, utilize a "Best Offer Strategy" to identify one or more offers to provide the borrower. According to embodiments described herein, the Best Offer Strategy can be defined as a lender's ability to establish, and refine as needed, business rules for providing offers to borrowers. The business rules can be related to credit application data, loan products, loan rates, and/or loan product selection criteria. As noted above, the business rules can be stored in association with the corresponding lender within a best off er strategy (BOS) database 42a, b, c." ([0046] of Emswiler)).
Emswiler does not disclose, but Trevethan teaches:
locking, by execution of code instructions of the smart contract, the contribution toward the functional message and preventing by said locking, from the at least one client terminal, an access to said locked contributions and preventing by said locking, from the plurality of responding client terminals, the access to said locked contributions (By disclosing, “the digital asset 520 is a distribution, in accordance with the winning outcome of the smart contract, of digital assets previously locked in the counterparty transaction 530 upon validation of the signatures 518B.” ([0075], [0085], [0093], [0147] of Trevethan));
receiving from execution of smart contract code, at least one selected response message selected from the plurality of response messages and transmitted to said at least one processor over said network; (By disclosing, “As illustrated in FIG. 2, the example embodiment 200 may include counterparties 202A-02N (C.sub.1-C.sub.n) who create a smart contract 206 that distributes an amount of a digital asset 220 that is dependent upon a consensus of answers 214 received from a group of members 204A-04M (p.sub.1-p.sub.m) recruited to objectively determine the answers 214 in exchange for a distribution 222. That is, in embodiments, the members 204A-04M collectively act as a distributed trusted oracle to provide the answer to a decision problem or a function problem.” ([0085], [0088]-[0089] of Trevethan));
receiving, over said network, from a subset of the plurality of responding client terminals, respective indications of independent validation of the at least one selected response message performed independently by each of said subset of the plurality of responding client terminals and transmitted to said at least one processor (By disclosing, “The outcome may be a result of a consensus of answers submitted by the plurality of members.” ([0021] of Trevethan); “In an example, the counterparties 202A-02N determine that at least 60% of the members 204A-04M must submit matching answers for consensus to be reached.” ([0089] of Trevethan); and “In an embodiment, the ghost chain consensus algorithm identifies the “winning” members (i.e., the members who voted with the consensus), and a distribution transaction 532B (TxF) is created by the group, for the group” ([0148], [0085], [0088]-[0089] of Trevethan));
wherein each of said subset of the plurality of responding client terminals is provided with all unencrypted partial or complete contributions and all unencrypted parameters associated with all of the at least one selected response message for performing said independent validation (This limitation is considered non-functional descriptive material. The limitation merely describes each client terminal in the subset is provided with some content or information, but does not recite any functional relationship between the descriptive material and the claimed system. When descriptive material is not functionally related to the substrate, the descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in terms of patentability. [T]he critical question is whether there exists any new and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate (In re Ngai 367 F.3d 1336, 1339, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Ex parte Nehls 88 USPQ2d 1883, 1888-1889 (BPAI 2008); In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP § 2111.05; Cf. In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). In particular, the claim does not require this limitation to perform the claimed functions. The presence of this limitation in the claim does not distinguish the claimed subject matter from the teachings of Trevethan. Accordingly, this limitation is not entitled to patentable weight. See MPEP 2111.05.)
evaluating a consensus requirement according to the received indications of validation (By disclosing, “In some embodiments, the answers 214 are answers that correspond to one or more of the outcome conditions specified in the smart contract 206. As an example, the smart contract could include a plurality of conditions that affect an amount of the digital asset 220 paid out and to which entity the digital asset 220 is paid to. The members 204A-04M submit the answers 214, which are usable to determine which (if any) of the plurality of conditions are fulfilled.” ([0093], [0162], [0148], [0085], [0088]-[0089] of Trevethan)); and
in response to the consensus requirement being satisfied, unlocking the contributions, for access by the at least one client terminal according to the selection result ([0085], [0093] of Trevethan)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify the invention of Emswiler in view of Trevethan to include techniques of locking, by execution of code instructions of the smart contract, the contribution toward the functional message and preventing by said locking, from the at least one client terminal, an access to said locked contributions and preventing by said locking, from the plurality of responding client terminals, the access to said locked contributions; receiving from execution of smart contract code, at least one selected response message selected from the plurality of response messages and transmitted to said at least one processor over said network; receiving, over said network, from a subset of the plurality of responding client terminals, respective indications of independent validation of the at least one selected response message performed independently by each of said subset of the plurality of responding client terminals and transmitted to said at least one processor; evaluating a consensus requirement according to the received indications of validation; and in response to the consensus requirement being satisfied, unlocking the contributions, for access by the at least one client terminal according to the selection result. Doing so would result in an improved invention because this would leverage the advantages of using smart contracts (e.g. automation, improved efficiency, etc.).
Regarding claim(s) 2, Emswiler discloses:
wherein the decentralized blockchain based selection is for resolution of a tender, wherein the functional message indicates the tender, wherein the partial or complete contributions toward the functional message, that are locked and unlocked comprise funds for the tender. (By disclosing, the tender of the total amount of the target value as part of the selection criteria: "Examples of selection criteria can include, but are not limited to, requested loan amount. credit score, property location, property size, requested loan type, down payment amount, dwelling unit type, current home value, available equity, monthly payment, mortgage amount, loan type (VA, FHA, conventional), loan-to-value, requested interest rate, purchase price, rate type (fixed, variable), sale date, sale type (new, resale), length of residence, telephone number, marital status, gender, age, income, presence of children, ethnicity, demographic selects, and the like. According to one embodiment, there can be zero, one, or a plurality of lenders matched to a borrower's credit application." ( [0045] of Emswiler)).
Regarding claim(s) 3, Emswiler discloses:
wherein the total target received from the at least one client terminal is an unencrypted target value (By disclosing, a function of the memory and processor of the mitigation device ([0052] of Emswiler); until the sum of the unencrypted partial values of the response messages reaches and/or is above the threshold, wherein the threshold is set as a requirement of the unencrypted target value provided by the initiator client terminal (since the threshold is still not clearly described, interpreted as the number of partial values that add up to the target value. ( [0053] of Emswiler)).
.
Regarding claim(s) 5, Emswiler discloses:
storing an unencrypted indication of the partial or the complete contribution toward the functional message of funds of each response message and the associated encrypted interest rate, and providing the at least one client terminal with access to the stored unencrypted indication and encrypted interest rate. (By disclosing, "Once all documents are signed and delivered from the borrower, the loan is closed. Once the lender closes a loan, the lender can provide the Loan Facilitator system 30 with a notification of the loan closure. This information can be stored by the Loan Facilitator system 30 and accessed by the lenders. In particular, according to one embodiment, information about the transaction can be stored to allow lenders to have access to their lending history." ([0064] of Emswiler)).
Regarding claim(s) 9, Emswiler discloses:
wherein the contribution comprising monetary funds are locked until at least one of: the tender is announced, and the tender times out without winners. (By disclosing, "If accepted, the lender can then contact the borrower to
coordinate the closing of the loan. In one embodiment, the lender has the borrower's name, social security number, application ID number, phone number at both work and home, and the best time to contact the borrower from the acceptance message (e.g., email) sent when the offer was accepted. The loan closing can take place in any way that the lender typically closes loans. Once all documents are signed and delivered from the borrower, the loan is closed. Once the lender closes a loan, the lender can provide the Loan Facilitator system 30
with a notification of the loan closure. This information can be stored by the Loan
Facilitator system 30 and accessed by the lenders. In particular, according to one
embodiment, information about the transaction can be stored to allow lenders to have access to their lending history." ([0064] of Emswiler)).
Regarding claim(s) 10, Emswiler does not disclose, but Trevethan teaches:
wherein the consensus is evaluated according to a majority vote computed as a number of indications of each validation received from the at least one responding client terminal relative to a total number of responding client terminals that were provided the at least one selected response message for validation. (By disclosing, “In various examples, consensus refers to a simple majority of matching answers, an absolute majority of matching answers, a majority of matching answers submitted before reaching a threshold (e.g., the first three matching answers are considered consensus answers), or a threshold number of matching answers. In some embodiments, the counterparties 202A-02N determine the threshold for determining the consensus. In an example, the counterparties 202A-02N determine that at least 60% of the members 204A-04M must submit matching answers for consensus to be reached.” ([0089] of Trevethan)).
Regarding claim(s) 11, Emswiler does not disclose, but Trevethan teaches:
wherein in response to the consensus meeting a requirement comprises in response to the majority vote percentage being above a majority vote threshold.
(By disclosing, “In various examples, consensus refers to a simple majority of matching answers, an absolute majority of matching answers, a majority of matching answers submitted before reaching a threshold (e.g., the first three matching answers are considered consensus answers), or a threshold number of matching answers. In some embodiments, the counterparties 202A-02N determine the threshold for determining the consensus. In an example, the counterparties 202A-02N determine that at least 60% of the members 204A-04M must submit matching answers for consensus to be reached.” ([0089] of Trevethan)).
Regarding claim(s) 12, Emswiler does not disclose, but Trevethan teaches:
wherein the indication of the independently performed validation of the at least one selected response message is from the subset of the plurality of responding client including selected responding client terminals that provided the selected at least one response message and non-selected responding client terminals that provided non-selected response messages (By disclosing, “In various examples, consensus refers to a simple majority of matching answers, an absolute majority of matching answers, a majority of matching answers submitted before reaching a threshold (e.g., the first three matching answers are considered consensus answers), or a threshold number of matching answers. In some embodiments, the counterparties 202A-02N determine the threshold for determining the consensus. In an example, the counterparties 202A-02N determine that at least 60% of the members 204A-04M must submit matching answers for consensus to be reached.” ([0085]-[0089] of Trevethan)).
.
Regarding claim(s) 13, Emswiler discloses:
unlocking locked contributions comprising monetary funds provided for the tender for access by non-selected responding client terminals for return of non-selected tenders ([0064] of Emswiler).
Regarding claim(s) 14, Emswiler discloses:
unlocking partial contributions comprising monetary funds for access by each selected responding client terminals, wherein the partial contributions comprising monetary funds denote a portion of the funds not included as the tender for the at least one client terminal. ([0064] of Emswiler).
Regarding claim(s) 15, Emswiler does not disclose, but Trevethan teaches:
computing a hash value based on an indication of each of the at least one selected response message, wherein the hash value is provided to the plurality of client terminals for local computation of the hash value for matching to the provided hash value for validation of the at least one selected response message ([0140], [0003] of Trevethan).
Regarding claim(s) 17, Emswiler does not disclose, but Trevethan teaches:
unlocking the plurality of contributions comprising monetary funds toward the functional message, for retrieval by the plurality of responding client terminals when a set-of-rules is met, wherein the set-of-rules include at least one of: no selection is made, an amount of received indication of validation is below a threshold provided by the at least one client terminal, and contributions comprising monetary funds toward the functional message, are not claimed by the at least one client terminal within a defined time interval. (By disclosing, “One of the plurality of possible outcomes may be associated with a timeout condition for the set of conditions. Additionally or alternatively, further as a result of validating the outcome transaction and as a result of an occurrence of the timeout condition, the first amount may be refunded to the first party. Additionally or alternatively, further as a result of validating the outcome transaction and as a result of an occurrence of the timeout condition, the second amount may be refunded to the second party.” ([0030], [0088] of Trevethan)).
Regarding claim(s) 18, Emswiler discloses:
wherein the response messages received from the plurality of responding client terminals are accessible to the at least one client terminal when a timeout duration provided has expired. (By disclosing, the selection criteria allows for the selection of the lender's best offers for the borrower: "Standard #3: Lenders may be required to return offers to the Loan Facilitator system 30 within five minutes 95% of the time. This standard ensures that borrowers quickly receive offers from all matched lenders and in approximately the same time frame." ( [0056] of Emswiler)).
Regarding claim(s) 22, Emswiler does not disclose, but Trevethan teaches:
wherein said selection of the at least one selected response message selected from the plurality of response messages is conducted on said at least one client terminal executing said smart contract code. ([0087]-[0089], [0093] of Trevethan).
Claim(s) 4, 6, 7, 8, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Emswiler (US 20140040113), in view of Trevethan (US 20200313884), further in view of Smith (US 20150379510).
Regarding claim(s) 4, Emswiler in view of Trevethan discloses:
wherein the functional message defines a loan; wherein the decentralized blockchain based selection is for management of a loan ([0045]-[0046] of Emswiler),
Emswiler does not disclose:
receiving in association with the total target of the loan, a public key associated with a corresponding private key stored by the at least one client terminal, wherein an interest rate for the partial or the complete contribution toward the functional message, of funds received in a response message is encrypted by a responding client terminal using the public key.
However, Smith teaches:
using secure key pairs within a distributed smart contract system (By disclosing, "Public and private encrypted keys--(from Wikiwand.com) "It is computationally easy for a user to generate a public and private key-pair and to use it for encryption and decryption. The strength lies in the "impossibility" (computational impracticality) for a properly generated private key to be determined from its corresponding public key. Thus the public key may be published without compromising security. Security depends only on keeping the private key private." See Smith in [0077]; "Message authentication involves hashing the message to produce a "digest," and encrypting the digest with the private key to produce a digital signature. Thereafter anyone can verify this signature by (1) computing the hash of the message, (2) decrypting the signature with the signer's public key, and (3) comparing the computed digest with the decrypted digest." ( [0080] of Smith)).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Emswiler and Trevethan to include "encryption and decryption of select information", as taught by Smith, because the blockchain system would use simple algorithms and the secured keys to protect through cryptography the loan information.
Regarding claim(s) 6, Emswiler discloses:
analyzing the response messages according to a ranking of the interest rates, and assisting in selection of the at least one response message according to the ranking of the interest rates. (By disclosing, “According to one embodiment, the Loan Facilitator server 32 and, in particular, a processor associated with the Loan Facilitator server 32 executing, for example, the matching module, can, at Block 304, compare the credit application data and credit score to one or more sets of selection criteria provided by one or more lenders in order to identify one or more "matched" lender(s). As noted above, according to one embodiment, the selection criteria associated with each of a plurality of lenders may be stored in a database 36 associated with and accessible by the Loan Facilitator server 32…. Examples of selection criteria can include, but are not limited to, …, requested interest rate…” ([0044]-[0045], [0064] of Emswiler)).
And Smith teaches:
wherein said client code is executed by a processor of the at least one client terminal for performing at least part of the computations off the blockchain or off the decentralized application, further comprising code for: decrypting the interest rate of each response message with the private key (By disclosing, "Public and private encrypted keys--(from Wikiwand.com) "It is computationally easy for a user to generate a public and private key-pair and to use it for encryption and decryption. The strength lies in the "impossibility" (computational impracticality) for a properly generated private key to be determined from its corresponding public key. Thus the public key may be published without compromising security. Security depends only on keeping the private key private." See Smith in [0077]; "Message authentication involves hashing the message to produce a "digest," and encrypting the digest with the private key to produce a digital signature. Thereafter anyone can verify this signature by (1) computing the hash of the message, (2) decrypting the signature with the signer's public key, and (3) comparing the computed digest with the decrypted digest." ( [0080] of Smith)).
Regarding claim(s) 7, Emswiler does not disclose, but Trevethan teaches:
providing at least one of the following to the plurality of client terminals for performing the validation: (i) the at least one selected response message, (ii) all decrypted interest rates, and (iii) all unencrypted indications of partial or complete contribution toward the functional message of funds. ([0087]-[0089] of Trevethan).
Regarding claim(s) 8, Emswiler in view of Trevethan discloses:
wherein said code of the smart contract of the blockchain is further for causing a blockchain record for the blockchain documenting the consensus and storing said blockchain record in said blockchain (By disclosing, a ghost chain for storing the consensus votes ([0135], [0137] of Trevethan)), and
wherein the blockchain record stores, for each of the selected at least one response messages from corresponding responding client terminals providing the indication of validation, the address of the respective responding client terminal, the partial or the complete contribution toward the functional message of the loan, and the unencrypted interest rate. (By disclosing, “In order for a transaction to be written to the blockchain, it must be “validated”. Network nodes (mining nodes) perform work to ensure that each transaction is valid, with invalid transactions rejected from the network. A node can have standards for validity different from other nodes. Because validity in the blockchain is consensus based, a transaction is considered valid if a majority of nodes agree that a transaction is valid. Software clients installed on the nodes perform this validation work on transactions referencing an unspent transaction (UTXO) in part by executing the UTXO locking and unlocking scripts. If execution of the locking and unlocking scripts evaluates to TRUE and other validation conditions, if applicable, are met, the transaction is validated by the node. The validated transaction is propagated to other network nodes, whereupon a mining node can select to include the transaction in a blockchain. Thus, in order for a transaction to be written to the blockchain, it must be i) validated by the first node that receives the transaction—if the transaction is validated, the node relays it to the other nodes in the network; and ii) added to a new block built by a mining node; and iii) mined, i.e., added to the public ledger of past transactions. The transaction is considered to be confirmed when a sufficient number of blocks is added to the blockchain to make the transaction practically irreversible.” ([0005], [0074], [0075] of Trevethan)).
Regarding claim(s) 21, Emswiler in view of Trevethan discloses:
wherein said code of the smart contract of the blockchain is further for distributing the blockchain record over the network to a plurality of servers hosting copies of the blockchain dataset and updating respective copies of a side-chain of the blockchain record of the blockchain, wherein the side- chain stores a history of previous response messages to previous queries. (By disclosing, a ghost chain for storing the consensus votes ([0135], [0137] of Trevethan)).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Emswiler (US 20140040113), in view of Trevethan (US 20200313884), further in view of Ignatchenko (US 20170286951).
Regarding claim(s) 16, Emswiler discloses:
wherein the plurality of contributions comprising monetary funds toward the functional message, wherein the funds are provided to the smart contract by each of the responding client terminals that execute a transmit function and transmits the funds to the smart contract function, and the unlocked funds are accessed by the client terminal executing a get function for obtaining the funds from the smart contract function code into a digital wallet of the initiator client terminal.
( By disclosing, “ In some embodiments, in 602, two or more counterparties, such as the counterparties 202 of FIG. 2, determine the parameters of the smart contract. For example, the counterparties may come to agreement on an amount of a digital asset (e.g., Bitcoin) that each of the counterparties will commit to the smart contract transaction, a set of conditions, and amounts of digital assets to pay out and to whom they pay out, upon fulfilment of each of the conditions. As a more specific example, an agreement is reached between three counterparties (Alice, Bob, and Carol) whereupon Alice will commit an amount X.sub.1, Bob will commit an amount X.sub.2, and Carol will commit an amount X.sub.3 of digital assets to the smart contract transaction.” ([0160] of Trevethan)).
Emswiler in view of Trevethan does not disclose, but Ignatchenko teaches:
a transmit function of an application programming interface (API) that accesses a respective digital wallet of the plurality of responding client terminals; and a get function of the API. (By disclosing, “Upon the Customer 110 authorizing the purchase by entering his private keys to transfer the funds from his crypto wallet 112 to the intermediary wallet 149, a PayByCrypto API 126 is used by the merchant vendor to transmit a PayByCrypto Request 414 as shown in FIG. 4.” ([0038] of Ignatchenko); and “Additionally, the Merchant may opt to maintain the funds in crypto currency, whereby the intermediary wallet 149 will transfer the crypto currency value to the merchant wallet 176 via a Crypto Currency Settlement 147 API call.” ([0058] of Ignatchenko)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify the combination of Emswiler and Trevethan, in view of Ignatchenko to include a transmit function of an application programming interface (API) that accesses a respective digital wallet of the plurality of responding client terminals; and a get function of the API. Doing so would result in an improved invention because this would leverage the advantages of using API (e.g. high performance and scalability, enabling automation and innovation, etc.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with regard to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that each individual references does not disclose the claim limitations. However, non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based on the teachings for a combination of references. (See In reMerck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (Citing In re Keller, 642 F. 2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981))).
Also, the limitation “wherein each of said subset of the plurality of responding client terminals is provided with all unencrypted partial or complete contributions and all unencrypted parameters associated with all of the at least one selected response message for performing said independent validation” has no patentable weight because this limitation is considered non-functional descriptive material. The limitation merely describes each client terminal in the subset is provided with some content or information, but does not recite any functional relationship between the descriptive material and the claimed system. When descriptive material is not functionally related to the substrate, the descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in terms of patentability. [T]he critical question is whether there exists any new and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate (In re Ngai 367 F.3d 1336, 1339, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Ex parte Nehls 88 USPQ2d 1883, 1888-1889 (BPAI 2008); In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP § 2111.05; Cf. In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). In particular, the claim does not require this limitation to perform the claimed functions. The presence of this limitation in the claim does not distinguish the claimed subject matter from the teachings of Trevethan. Accordingly, this limitation is not entitled to patentable weight. See MPEP 2111.05.
Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection will be maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20130290143 to Lampl for disclosing:
Methods and systems of loan syndication are provided. Upload details of an originated loan owned by a user may be stored in a database. The database is queried and results are presented to an investor so that the investor can determine if he wishes to purchase either at least a portion of a single loan or portion of a portfolio of loans. The database returns a list of loans or a portfolios of loans that satisfy the investor's search criteria, wherein the loan results that are returned are owned by an entity other than the investor. The investor is able to select a loan for purchase from the list in order for ownership of the selected loan to transfer from the owning entity an entity associated with the investor.
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 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 DUAN ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-4642. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 10 AM-5 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, Neha Patel can be reached at 571-270-1492. 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.
/DUAN ZHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699
Prosecution Insights