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 1-17 are canceled. Claims 21-37 are newly added. Claims 18-37 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 18-37 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 18 which is illustrative of the independent claim 31 and recites:
18. (Original) A method comprising:
receiving one or more records, based on customer account data, from a data streaming platform;
applying one or more global exclusion rules to the records, wherein the global exclusion rules are formulated to remove records that do not require decisioning, including records of perfect credit scores, lost credit cards, and stolen credit cards;
applying one or more local exclusion rules to the records, wherein the local exclusion rules are formulated to remove exception records, including records of perfect credit scores, lost credit cards, stolen credit cards, and other exceptional criteria;
for a record in the one or more records that passes the one or more global exclusion rules and the one or more local exclusion rules, assigning to the record a credit decision path including one chosen from the set of: credit line increase, credit line decrease, and credit line closure.”
.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 is commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations).
Besides reciting the abstract idea, the remaining claim limitations recite generic computer components (e.g., computer processor - see App. specification, paras. 0041- 0043). 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 management so it is responsive to changing customer risk, using generic computer components.
Further, the dependent claims 19-30 for example, recite additional descriptive details about the criteria or rules applied to the credit decisioning. For example, claims 19-21 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 pool of 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 18and 31 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 18-37 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 18-37 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 18 (Original) Brieley discloses A method comprising:
applying one or more global exclusion rules to the records, wherein the global exclusion rules are formulated to remove records that do not require decisioning including records of perfect credit scores, lost credit cards, and stolen credit cards; (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),
applying one or more local exclusion rules to the records, wherein the local exclusion rules are formulated to remove exception records, including records of perfect credit scores, lost credit cards, stolen credit cards, and other exceptional criteria
(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; see also paras. 0027-0034)0027; 0032-0037);
for a record in the one or more records that passes the one or more global exclusion rules and the one or more local exclusion rules, assigning to the record a credit decision path including one chosen from the set of: credit line increase, credit line decrease, and credit line closure(Bireley, paras. 0077-0080).
Brieley does not directly disclose but Duhon discloses
receiving one or more records, based on customer account data, from a data streaming platform (Duhon, paras. 0009-0013; see also paras. 0039);
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 19 (Original) Bireley discloses the method of claim 18, further comprising :transmitting the credit decision path to a downstream system(Bireley, Figs. 16-17).
As to claim 20. (Original) Bireley discloses the method of claim 19, further comprising: transmitting audit and reporting data to a reporting and analysis system(Bireley, paras. 0024-0026; 0034-0036; 0052-0055).
As to claim 21 (New) Brieley discloses the method of claim 18, wherein the credit decision path is transmitted to an interactive visual tool for display(Brieley, paras. 0070-0076, 0081; Figs. 14-15).
As to claim 22. (New) Brieley discloses the method of claim 21, wherein the interactive visual tool is configured for real-time credit line management(Brieley, para. 0077 – “…the decision analyzer can be programmed to reprocess transaction data, such as by applying the rules 138 and scoring model(s) 140 to the modified categorized feature data 112. The reprocessing can be implemented while the change(s) are pending, such as to enable the user to test one or more possible category changes and receive real-time (or near-real time) feedback to visualize updated decision analysis results based on the changes. Alternatively, the reprocessing can be triggered responsive to approval by an authorized user. For example, one or more authorized users can be alerted of the change(s) pending review by alerting each user, such as by sending a notification (e.g., an email message, a text message, an instant message or the like)”. see paras. 0070-0076, 0081; Figs. 14-15).
As to claims 23 (New) Brieley discloses the method of claim 18, wherein the method further includes using a credit line decisioning system to apply the exclusion rules(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; see also paras. 0027-0034)0027; 0032-0037).
As to claim 24. (New) Brieley discloses the method of claim 18, further including applying grid-based exclusion rules (Brieley, paras. 0005-0007; 0027-0034)0027; 0032-0037).
As to claim 25. (New) Brieley discloses the method of claim 18, wherein the global exclusion rules are further configured to remove records above a certain threshold amount. (Brieley, paras. 0005-0007; 0027-0034)0027; 0032-0037).
As to claim 26. (New) Brieley discloses the method of claim 18, wherein the local exclusion rules are configured to exclude specific records based on a category code(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).
As to claim 27.(New) Brieley discloses the method of claim 18, wherein the method further includes using line assignment logic to determine the credit decision path (Brieley, paras. 0041-0045).
As to claim 28 (New) Brieley discloses the method of claim 27, wherein the line assignment logic includes retry logic and routing logic (Brieley, paras. 0041] “…a transaction analyzer 208 programmed to identify income transactions based on a set of income-related inference rules and/or logic 210. The rules 210 can specify a number of one or more prerequisites for income transactions. As an example, a prerequisite can specify a required range of transaction history, such as a minimum period of time used by the income analyzer to identify a transaction as an income transaction. Another prerequisite rule can be the absence of another descriptor identifying the potential income transaction as being another type of transaction (e.g., Loan Disbursement). The rules/logic 210 can also specify the extent to which the descriptions should match (e.g., match the entire descriptions). The inference rules/logic 210 can further specify how the borrower's transaction data is aggregated at the description level to characterize income. Examples of logic/rules 210 that can be implemented by the income analyzer 208 for characterizing income are as follows: [0042] If (transaction amount is in range [750, 7100]) AND (count of transaction for a description is in range [2, 4]) AND (average delta of all the transaction amounts for a description is in range [20, 35]) AND (span between the first and last transaction for a description is in range [20, inf)) then it is income and the income frequency is Monthly; see also paras 0043-0046).
As to claim 29. (New) Brieley discloses the method of claim 28, wherein the retry logic is configured to use a circuit breaker pattern (Brieley, paras. 0034-0040).
As to claim 30. (New) Brieley discloses the method of claim 18, wherein the global exclusion rules and the local exclusion rules are configured for reuse(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 31-37 contain limitations similar to claims 18-30 and are rejected in like manner.
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