DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . The following is in response to an application dated November 10, 2025. Claims 1-9 and 18-20 are canceled. Claims 21-30 are newly added. Claims 10-17 and 21-30 are pending. All pending claims are examined.
Continuation Application
This application is a Continuation of Application No.18799257 (“Parent Application”). See MPEP §201.07. In accordance with MPEP §609.02 A. 2 and MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), the Examiner has reviewed and considered the prior art cited in the Parent Application. Also in accordance with MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), all documents cited or considered ‘of record’ in the Parent Application are now considered cited or ‘of record’ in this application. Additionally, Applicant(s) are reminded that a listing of the information cited or ‘of record’ in the Parent Application need not be resubmitted in this application unless Applicant(s) desire the information to be printed on a patent issuing from this application. See MPEP §609.02 A. 2.
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 10-17 and 21-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
The claim recites abstract idea of organizing human activities. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Analysis
The claims are directed to one or more of the following statutory categories: a process, a machine, a manufacture, and a composition of matter.
Independent Claim 25 which is illustrative of the independent claim 10 and recites:
25. (New) A method comprising: receiving one or more records, based on customer account data; providing the one or more records as inputs to a data orchestrator;
transmitting the one or more records, using the data orchestrator, to a FICO platform;
accessing, using one or more application program interfaces, the one or more records;
extracting one or more features from the one or more records;
providing the one or more features as inputs to a credit line decisioning system; and assigning, using the credit line decisioning system, a credit decision path based on the one or more features”
.The invention as claimed recites an abstract idea of credit line decisioning based on predefined criteria, that is a risk underwriting management process, whereby there is a determination made in response to the transaction history that is a method of organizing human activity that are commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). This entails managing credit lines in a faster and more accurate fashion.
Besides reciting the abstract idea, the remaining claim limitations recite generic computer components (e.g., network, processor - see App. specification, paras. 0041, 0096-0099; see also Figs. 5-6). This recited abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites generic computer components for tracking and receiving data.
The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements - (e.g., computer) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of automating credit line decisioning, so it is responsive to changing customer risk, using generic computer components.
Further, the dependent claims 11-24 and 26-30 for example, recite additional descriptive details about the criteria or rules applied to the making the determination of the credit line limits. For example, claims 26-39 describe some attributes and additional steps and data points factored into processing the request, however the recited abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite generic computer components to evaluate the submitted credit line data points for evaluating changing customer risk based on predefined conditions.
The dependent claims provide additional descriptions of the components of the claimed invention in a manner that merely refines and further limits the abstract idea of independent claims 10 and 25, do not add any feature that is an “inventive concept” which cures the deficiencies of the independent claims.
None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the dependent claims are patent-ineligible.
In conclusion, merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Therefore, the claims 10-17 and 21-30 are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 10-13, 17, 23-25 and 30 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bireley, USP Pub. No. 20230360121 in view of Duhon, USP. Pub. No. 20010011245.
As to claim 10. (Original) Bireling discloses A system comprising:
at least one processor (Bireling, Fig. 1); and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor(Bireling, Fig. 1) to:
extract one or more features from the one or more records (Bireley, para. 0025 –“…apply rules to the feature data and provide a first hierarchical decision. The first hierarchical decision can be based on execution of a rule set, which may be customized to align with underwriting criteria used by the lender. For instance, the first hierarchical decision can represent an automatic denial for the borrower or enable further consideration and processing based on the scoring model. The scoring model can be applied to process the transaction and feature data and compute a score having a value representing the credit worthiness and/or likelihood of loan default by the borrower. The score can provide a second hierarchical decision, which can be a recommendation to deny or approve the borrower or flag the borrower for further review by the user (e.g., an agent). The systems and methods can include an interactive graphical user interface (GUI) that provides one or more automated recommendations (e.g., in a report) based on the analysis scoring model. A user can approve or decline one or more recommendations presented in the GUI by entering instructions through the GUI.”; see also paras. 0027-0034)0027; 0032-0037);
provide the one or more features as inputs to a credit line decisioning system(Bireley, para. 0005 –“ include applying rules to the feature data to provide a first hierarchical decision, in which the rules represent underwriting criteria. The first hierarchical decision can represent an automatic denial or enable further decision processing. The method can also include applying the scoring model to process the feature data and compute a score having a value representing a credit worthiness and/or a likelihood of loan default by the borrower and providing a second hierarchical decision); and
Brieley does not directly disclose but Duhon discloses
receive one or more records, based on customer account data (Duhon, paras. 0009-0013; see also paras. 0039);
provide the one or more records as inputs to a data orchestrator(Duhon, paras. 0039-0041; see also paras. 0009-0013);
transmit the one or more records, using the data orchestrator, to a FICO platform(Duhon, para. 0039);
access, using one or more application program interfaces, the one or more records (Duhon, paras. 0009-0015; Fig. 1);
assign, using the credit line decisioning system, a credit decision path based on the one or more features (Duhon, paras. 0010, 0014).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Brieley with the Duhon because it facilitates an improvement in the efficiency and accuracy of the decisioning process.
As to claim 11 (Original) Bireley discloses the system of claim 10, wherein the customer account data comprises at least one of a deposit account balance, an average balance, an account usage, a delinquency, a customer address, or a customer identification number (Bireley, para. 0032 – “..The customer data 118 can also include other information provided by the borrower that is to be verified (e.g., by the TASS 102) as part of the process, such as income, loan obligations, employer name, cash flow, and the like. In an example, the customer data 118 includes customer account and access information (e.g., account number(s), username(s) and password(s)) or provide resource locations (e.g., links) or other means to enable the borrower to provide the data aggregator 116 access to the borrower's accounts. In other examples, no customer identification and/or access information is stored or used directly by the TASS 102, and a token-based authentication protocol can be implemented by the aggregator service 116 to provide requisite access information for the borrower, such as through a token or other credentialed access mechanisms, helping further to maintain confidentiality and security for the borrower and the borrower's accounts. For instance, all financial and customer data for a given borrower can be identified and linked within the TASS 102 by a unique user identifier, such as a loan number or other identifier associated with the loan number and/or the borrower.”).
As to claim 12. (Original) Bireley discloses the system of claim 10, wherein the data orchestrator comprises a consumer client, a FICO orchestrator, a data workflow, and a producer client (Bireley, paras. 0032-0034 – aggregator and TASS - see also Fig. 1- “…system 100 configured to implement transaction analysis to facilitate credit decisioning. The system 100 includes a transaction analysis and scoring system (TASS) 102. The TASS 102 includes data and instructions executable by one or more processors configured to perform automated transaction verification and/or credit decisioning, as described herein.”);
As to claim 13 (Original) Bireley does not directly disclose but Duhon discloses the system of claim 10, wherein the credit line decisioning system comprises a decision orchestrator, a line management evaluator, and a line management assignor (Duhon, paras. 0039-0041; see also paras. 0009-0013 – see rationale for combination in claim 10).
As to claim 17(Original) Bireley discloses the system of claim 10, wherein the instructions further comprise: transmitting audit and reporting data to a reporting and analysis system (Bireley, paras. 0024-0026; 0034-0036; 0052-0055).
As to claim 23 (New) Bireley discloses the system of claim 12, wherein the data workflow includes a predefined sequence of tasks to process and transform data from a raw format to a consumable format(Bireley, paras. 0024-0026; 0034-0036; 0052-0055).
As to claim 24 (New) Bireley discloses, the system of claim 10, wherein the credit line decisioning system is further configured to apply exclusion rules to the one or more records(Bireley, para. 0005 –“ include applying rules to the feature data to provide a first hierarchical decision, in which the rules represent underwriting criteria. The first hierarchical decision can represent an automatic denial or enable further decision processing. The method can also include applying the scoring model to process the feature data and compute a score having a value representing a credit worthiness and/or a likelihood of loan default by the borrower and providing a second hierarchical decision).
As to claims 25 and 30 contain limitations similar to claims 10 and 24 and is rejected in like manner.
Claims 14-16 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bireley, USP Pub. No. 20230360121 in view of Duhon, USP. Pub. No. 20010011245 in view of Kim, USP Pub. No. 20250173787
As to claim 14 (Original) Bireley and Duhon do not directly disclose but Kim discloses the system of claim 10, wherein the instructions further comprise:
generating, using the credit line decisioning system, a behavioral score based on the one or more features (Kim, para. 0312-0316; see also para. 0339); and assigning, using the credit line decisioning system, the credit decision path based on the behavioral score (Kim, paras. 0339-0340).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bireley and Duhon with Kim because it provides an improvement in the quality of the output generated by seamlessly integrating the flow of data used in the decisioning process.
As to claim 15 (Original) Bireley discloses the system of claim 14, wherein the credit decision path is one chosen from the set of: credit line increase, credit line decrease, and credit line closure (Bireley, paras. 0077-0080).
As to claim 16 (Original) Bireley discloses the system of claim 14, wherein the instructions further comprise: transmitting the credit decision path to a downstream system (Bireley, Figs. 16-17).
18.-20. (Cancelled).
As to claim 26 contains limitations similar to claim 14 and is rejected in like manner.
Claims 21-22 and 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bireley, USP Pub. No. 20230360121 in view of Duhon, USP. Pub. No. 20010011245 in further view of Kim, USP Pub. No. 20250173787 in further view of Botev et al, USP Pub. No. 2020/0242129.
As to claim 21 (New) Bireley, Duhon and Kim do not directly disclose but Botev discloses the system of claim 10, wherein the data orchestrator is configured to combine data from multiple source applications into at least one micro batch for transmission to the credit line decisioning system (Botev, paras. 0286-00288; Fig. 45)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bireley, Duhon and Kim with the data synchronization of Botev such that it provides an improvement in the seamless integration and timely delivery of multiple sources of data
As to claim 22 (New) Bireley, Duhon and Kim do not directly disclose but Botev The system of claim 21, wherein the at least one micro batch is transmitted at a set interval of time (Botev, paras. 0286-00288; Fig. 45 – see rationale for combination in claim 21).
As to claim 27-28 contains limitations similar to claims 21-22 and is rejected in like manner.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Listed on form PTO-892.
Kollur et al., USP Pub. No. 20150019401, Integrated Credit Decision Platform
Wasser et. al. , USP No. 9830646, Credit Score Goals And Alerts Systems And Methods
Haggerty et al., US 20090248567, Consumer Behaviors At Lender Level
Mullen et al. U.S. 20030009402, Financial Management System, And Methods And Apparatus For Use Therein.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHIKA OJIAKU whose telephone number is (571)270-3608. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8.30 AM -5:00 PM EST.
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, Matthew Gart can be reached at 571 272-3955. 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.
/CHIKAODINAKA OJIAKU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3696
Prosecution Insights