DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in reply to the application filed on 02/17/2026.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure Statement(s) filed 02/17/2026 have been considered. Initialed copies of the Form 1449 are enclosed herewith.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 10 and 19 contains the trademark/trade name YOLOv8. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe the custom machine learning model and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a data obtaining subsystem configured to obtain…, a risk-based price determining subsystem configured to determine…, a data transmission subsystem configured to send…, a qualification determining subsystem configured to determine…, a financial application generation subsystem configured to generate…, an output subsystem configured to provide an output…, a payment processing subsystem configured to select…, a training subsystem configured to train…, a user addition subsystem configured to provide…, and a user validation subsystem configured to validate… in claims 11-19.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The subsystems are shown in fig. 2 as flowchart blocks and are described as software in [0062] of the specification which defines the subsystems as any such computer program instructions may be loaded onto a computer or other programmable apparatus (e.g., hardware) to produce a machine, such that the instructions which execute on the computer or other programmable apparatus create means for implementing the functions specified in the flowchart block(s).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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, and fails step 2 of the analysis because the focus of the claims is not on the devices themselves or a practical application but rather directed towards an abstract idea, the analysis is provided below.
Step 1 (Statutory Categories) - The claims pass step 1 of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106(III)) as the claims are directed towards a method, system, and non-transitory computer-readable medium.
Step 2A – Prong One (Do the claims recite an abstract idea?) - The idea is recited in the claims, in part, by:
obtaining one or more first data from one or more first users, wherein the one or more first data comprise at least one of: name, phone number, and address, of the one or more second users, one or more project categories, estimation of one or more projects, and time duration of the one or more projects being completed;
determining one or more first risk-based pricing options associated with the one or more projects based on the one or more first data obtained from the one or more first users;
sending one or more application links to one or more second users;
obtaining one or more second data from the one or more second users, wherein the one or more second data comprise at least one of: the name, the phone number, the address, at least last four digits of a social security number (SSN), birth date, and annual income, of the one or more second users, an amount requested by the one or more second users, and an option for one or more third users to be added to the one or more second users;
determining whether the one or more second users are qualified to obtain one or more credits associated with the one or more projects, by:
obtaining the one or more second data from the one or more second users;
pre-processing the one or more second data to generate one or more pre-processed data, wherein pre-processing the one or more second data comprises at least one of: normalizing the one or more second data to one or more standardized formats, identifying and managing one or more missing data fields in the one or more second data, and validating the one or more second data against one or more pre-defined data formats and ranges;
extracting one or more features from the one or more second data, wherein the one or more features comprise at least one of: a debt-to-income ratio, a credit utilization ratio, a payment history pattern, an employment stability indicator, a residential stability indicator, and an income verification indicator, of the one or more second users;
generating one or more integrated features by combining the extracted one or more features, wherein the one or more integrated features comprise at least one of: a financial stability score, a risk exposure indicator, and a repayment capacity indicator;
assigning one or more weights to each of at least one of: the one or more features and the one or more integrated features, wherein the one or more weights are assigned to each of at least one of: the one or more features and the one or more integrated features, based on historical loan performance data associated with one or more previous second users;
determining one or more qualification scores for the one or more second users based on the one or more weights assigned to each of at least one of: the one or more features and the one or more integrated features, using one or more functions, wherein the one or more functions comprise at least one of: a weighted sum function, a sigmoid function, a softmax function, and a probability distribution function; and
determining whether the one or more second users are qualified to obtain the one or more credits associated with the one or more projects based on the one or more qualification scores determined for the one or more second users;
sending the determined one or more first risk-based pricing options associated with the one or more projects to the one or more second users when the one or more second users are qualified to obtain the one or more credits associated with the one or more projects;
determining whether the one or more second users accept the one or more first risk-based pricing options associated with the one or more projects;
determining one or more second risk-based pricing options associated with the one or more projects when the one or more second users reject the one or more first risk-based pricing options associated with the one or more projects;
obtaining one or more confirmed information associated with the one or more projects, from the one or more second users, wherein the one or more confirmed information associated with the one or more projects comprise at least one of: one or more names associated with the one or more first users, one or more categories of works associated with the one or more projects, estimation of the works associated with the one or more projects, the time duration of the one or more projects, information associated with one or more ownerships, one or more categories of one or more properties of the one or more second users;
obtaining one or more third data associated with one or more identities (ID) of the one or more second users;
generating the one or more financial applications comprising one or more agreement based electronic documents for one or more payment processes, wherein the one or more agreement based electronic documents comprise at least one of: information associated with one or more credit amounts, and one or more truth in lending agreements (TILA); and
providing an output of the generated one or more financial applications in form of the one or more agreement based electronic documents.
The steps recited above under Step 2A Prong One of the analysis under the broadest reasonable interpretation covers commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; business relations) but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is other than reciting one or more hardware processors, one or more first and second devices, a user interface, a global distribution system, camera sensors, one or more clear databases, memory, a data obtaining subsystem, a risk-based price determining subsystem, a data transmission subsystem, a qualification determining subsystem, a financial application generation subsystem, an output subsystem, a payment processing subsystem, a training subsystem, a user addition subsystem, and a user validation subsystem, and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium nothing in the claim elements are directed towards anything other than commercial or legal interactions for gathering and analyzing information for a generating financing applications and financing options for a one or more projects. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial or legal interactions, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” groupings of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two (Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?) - This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of one or more hardware processors, one or more first and second devices, a user interface, a global distribution system, camera sensors, one or more clear databases, memory, a data obtaining subsystem, a risk-based price determining subsystem, a data transmission subsystem, a qualification determining subsystem, a financial application generation subsystem, an output subsystem, a payment processing subsystem, a training subsystem, a user addition subsystem, and a user validation subsystem, and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. The one or more hardware processors, one or more first and second devices, a user interface, a global distribution system, camera sensors, one or more clear databases, memory, a data obtaining subsystem, a risk-based price determining subsystem, a data transmission subsystem, a qualification determining subsystem, a financial application generation subsystem, an output subsystem, a payment processing subsystem, a training subsystem, a user addition subsystem, and a user validation subsystem, and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and limits the judicial exception to the particular environment of computers. The subsystems are shown in fig. 2 as flowchart blocks are described as software in [0062] of the specification which defines the subsystems as any such computer program instructions may be loaded onto a computer or other programmable apparatus (e.g., hardware) to produce a machine, such that the instructions which execute on the computer or other programmable apparatus create means for implementing the functions specified in the flowchart block(s), akin to mere instructions being implemented with generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components and limiting the judicial exception to a particular environment are not indicative of a practical application (see MPEP 20106.05(f) and MPEP 20106.05(h)). 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. The claims are directed towards an abstract idea.
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?) - The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, using the additional elements of one or more hardware processors, one or more first and second devices, a user interface, a global distribution system, camera sensors, one or more clear databases, memory, a data obtaining subsystem, a risk-based price determining subsystem, a data transmission subsystem, a qualification determining subsystem, a financial application generation subsystem, an output subsystem, a payment processing subsystem, a training subsystem, a user addition subsystem, and a user validation subsystem, and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. The one or more hardware processors, one or more first and second devices, a user interface, a global distribution system, camera sensors, one or more clear databases, memory, a data obtaining subsystem, a risk-based price determining subsystem, a data transmission subsystem, a qualification determining subsystem, a financial application generation subsystem, an output subsystem, a payment processing subsystem, a training subsystem, a user addition subsystem, and a user validation subsystem, and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium to perform the steps recited in Step 2A Prong One of the analysis amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and limits the judicial exception to the particular environment. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components and limiting the judicial exception to a particular environment does not provide an inventive concept. The additional elements have been considered separately, and as an ordered combination, and do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the judicial exception. Further, MPEP 2106.05(d)(ii) provides that receiving and transmitting data over a network (see buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network), and Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26, 110 USPQ2d 1984-1985 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts", "create electronic records, track multiple transactions, and issue simultaneous instructions");, Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log); , are well-understood routine and conventional, similar to the instant application claims which recites gathering and analyzing information for a generating financing applications and financing options for a one or more projects. See also, Mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase, Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017) or speeding up a loan-application process by enabling borrowers to avoid physically going to or calling each lender and filling out a loan application, LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc., 656 Fed. App'x 991, 996-97 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential);, processing information through a clearing-house, where the business relation is the relationship between a party submitted a credit application (e.g., a car dealer) and funding sources (e.g., banks) when processing credit applications, Dealertrack v. Huber, 674 F.3d 1315, 1331, 101 USPQ2d 1325, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2012) in which the Courts found the claims to ineligible under 35 USC 101 for being directed towards an abstract idea. Further, with respect to the providing an output… on a user interface step, this fails to transform the claims into patent eligible material, as this is part of the field of use and technical environment in which the abstract idea is being implement and does not result in an improvement to additional elements (see MPEP 2106.05(h) Electric Power Group court decision). With respect to the AI Model, in view of the new July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples, which provides additional guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, including artificial intelligence, the Examiner finds the claims ineligible. Similar to Claim 2 of Example 47 in the July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples, the Model is recited at high level of generality such that it amounts to using a generic computer to perform generic computer functions, akin to using a computer to perform repetitive calculations (See MPEP 2106.05(d)), and therefore amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims have been given the full analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination as a whole. For instance, claims 2, and 5-9 are all steps that fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” groupings of abstract ideas, generally linking the use of the judicial exemption to the computing environment and further limiting the abstract idea, similar to as discussed in the evaluation above. With respect to claims 3-4 and the training and deploying of the model, this is akin to Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., Case No. 2023-2437 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 18, 2025), where the Courts found that instead of disclosing “a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts,” Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2016), or “a specific means or method that solves a problem in an existing technological process,” Koninklijke, 942 F.3d at 1150, the only thing the claims disclose about the use of machine learning is that machine learning is used in a new environment and that the requirements that the machine learning model be “iteratively trained” or dynamically adjusted in the Machine Learning Training patents was not a technological improvement in that iterative training using selected training material and dynamic adjustments based on real-time changes are incident to the very nature of machine learning. With respect to claim 10, claim 10 recites several steps capturing and verifying information related to the user, their ID, face, and device fingerprint to generate a final security, however this is akin Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011); and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract but for generally linking the idea to the computing environment. The Dependent claims when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea further describing commercial and legal interactions. The additional limitations of the dependent claims when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure as this is the closest art of record as identified by the Examiner. US Patent Application Publication 20200167861 to Ramaswamy, et al. discloses “As illustrated in FIG. 1, the secure data acquisition and processing system 100 includes a secure point of sale (POS) system and server 102 that is accessible to a number of electronic computing devices and/or mobile computing devices (120, 130) through a network 110. The secure server 102 may be accessed by sales representative devices 120 and customer devices 130. The sales representative devices 120 may be used by a contractor offering financing products to customers in conjunction with construction and home improvement projects. The sales representative devices are internet capable computing devices 120 and may include, for example, a tablet computer 120a, a smartphone 120b, and a laptop computer 120c. The customer devices 130 may be used by a customer to apply for the financing offered in conjunction with construction and home improvement projects after receiving an initial invitation from the contractor. The customer devices are personal or mobile computing devices 130 and may include, for example, a smartphone 130a, a tablet computer 130b, and a laptop computer 130c.” Daya, et al. (US Patent 11393023) discloses “In this way, aspects of the present disclosure reduce friction in the onboarding of merchants to credit offer system 104 because credit offer system 104 may already have collected up-to-date information regarding merchants and may have already built profiles of such merchants when merchants are onboarded to credit offer system 104. Thus, when a merchant, such as merchant 112, is onboarded to credit offer system 104, such as when merchant 112 sends a request for a credit offer to credit offer system 104, credit offer system 104 may be able to intelligently determine, based on the profile it has already built regarding merchant 112, credit offers that merchant 112 qualifies for without requesting additional data from merchant 112. Further, credit offer system 104 may also be able to intelligently determine, based on the profile it has already built regarding merchant 112, additional data it may request from merchant 112 to refine the credit offers to make to merchant 112.” US Patent Application Publication 20200372531 to Kesiboyana discloses “The first or second buyer application 144, 145 may transmit a pricing request to the central application 100 to generate a pricing structure for a specified product. The eligibility micro-service 104 may determine whether the specified product is eligible for a loan. The customers micro-service 110 may query the applications database 146 to determine whether prequalification results existed for the user that had been processed within a specified time frame. The customers micro-service 110 may retrieve the prequalification results for the user from the applications database 146. The pricing micro-service 108 may interface with third-party credit bureaus to execute a hard credit pull on the user. In the event, prequalification results exist for the user, the pricing micro-service 108 may verify the loan details provided to the user in the prequalification result based on the hard pull. In response to verifying the loan details, the pricing micro-service 108 can generate a pricing structure based on a prequalification result. The pricing structure can include the same loan details as the prequalification result.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY S CUNNINGHAM II whose telephone number is (313)446-6564. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am-4pm.
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.
GREGORY S. CUNNINGHAM II
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3694
/GREGORY S CUNNINGHAM II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694
