DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Acknowledgments
The submission filed on 04/13/26 is acknowledged.
Status of Claims
Claims 21-40 are pending.
In the Amendment filed on 04/13/26, claims 21, 30, 31, 39 and 40 were amended, and no claims were cancelled or added.
Claims 21-40 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the claim objection
In view of the instant claim amendments, the claim objections is withdrawn.
Regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The Office responds to Applicant's arguments below. Page numbers below refer to Applicant's Response, unless otherwise indicated.
Overview
Applicant argues that the claimed invention reflects an improvement in technology, specifically, pertaining to dynamically updating a UI.
At page 9 Applicant presents its putative improvement in technology. At page 10, Applicant argues that the putative improvement is analogous to Example 37 (USPTO Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance) and to Core Wireless.
The Office finds that although the claimed invention, like Example 37 and Core Wireless, may provide the advantage of increased convenience for a user in using a UI, the claimed invention, unlike Example 37 and Core Wireless, does not encompass/ reflect an improvement in UI technology but rather merely a putative improvement in the abstract idea.
This conclusion is confirmed/bolstered by the analysis in the recent PTAB Decision in this application.1
Detailed argument
Discussion of Applicant's putative claimed improvement is found in Applicant's specification at 0002 and 0022-0024, which are reproduced below:
[0002] Users may utilize computing devices to perform electronic transaction processing with other devices. Online entities may provide digital wallets to users, which include funds and/or payment instruments that allow a user to process transactions with other users, merchants, and the like. The digital wallet may be accessible through a dedicated application and/or one or more online web portals that output interfaces that users may utilize to process data with the entities, such as transactions and/or voluntary payments. For example, provided content may include past processed transactions, including transaction data of an amount, receiving entity, items purchased, or other information. Because such content is for transactions already completed, use of such content is typically limited to budgeting, tracking, and the like. Therefore, expanding uses of content provided with processed transactions would be desirable to both users and service providers. (Emphasis added)
As per 0002 (underscore shows high level description of putative problem solved and solution provided by Applicant), prior art static displays are said to permit only observation of the data or the like, while Applicant's claimed invention aims to permit users to perform actions based on the data.
[0022] If a transaction is determined to be valid to be flipped into an installment loan for all or a portion of the transaction's payment, then the service provider may extend the offer through one or more messages, digital wallet interface elements, and/or transaction data displays for the user. In this regard, a transaction history may be accessible and viewable through a display on an application or through a website. The display may include previous transaction information and interface elements, fields, or options that allow the user to interact with the previous transaction(s), such as to view additional information. Another interface element may be dynamically generated, populated, and/or displayed in response to the service provider determining that the particular transaction is eligible to be flipped to an installment loan. The interface element may correspond to an interface option, menu option, selection field, or the like that allows a user to accept the transaction to be flipped into an installment loan. Thus, selection of the interface element may initiate a process to obtain the installment loan on behalf of the user, such as a user agreement to the installment loan. The interface element may be displayed through an interactive interface and allow the user to accept terms of an installment loan, as well as view those terms or negotiate the terms as necessary. The data used to extend the offer may only constitute an offer to flip the transaction to an installment loan and may not automatically accept the offer or provide the amount for the installment loan to the user. (Emphasis added)
[0023] If the service provider receives an acceptance of the offer to flip all or a portion of a previous outgoing payment for a transaction to an installment loan, the service provider may further determine whether the user and/or transaction still qualifies to be flipped. For example, the service provider may receive user input associated with the interface element that indicates an acceptance of the offer for the installment loan, such as click a button or moving an interface option. Additionally, the service provider may present the interface element as other data through another interface, such as an audio interface through a speaker. Acceptance of the flip offer may be performed through mouse/keyboard, touch, voice, or other input, such as through a mobile phone, chat application, or microphone/speaker system. The service provider may utilize the user data, transaction data, and/or intelligent scoring system to determine whether the offer is still valid for the installment loan. This may include checking further information than what was initially used to offer the installment loan (e.g., a credit check with a credit scoring agency). If the offer is still valid, the service provider may initiate a process to extend the installment loan to the user, such as by requesting additional user information and/or connecting the user with a loan extension agent or process. However, if the offer is no longer valid, the service provider may revoke the option and notify user that the offer is no longer valid (e.g., due to a change in offer data for the installment loan, meeting a cap of installment loan amount or number, etc.). The service provider may further update all or a portion of the interface elements associated with the offers based on whether the offer was valid and may re-score other transaction flip offers. Additionally, the service provider may monitor the past transaction for the flip offer to determine whether the transaction is reversed (e.g., a return of items or other reversal of the transaction that returns funds for the transaction to the user). If the past transaction is reversed, the service provider may determine another past transaction that may be flipped into an installment loan or credit offer, as discussed herein. The installment loan for the past transaction that was reversed may be paid off using the returned funds, or the user may be presented with an option of maintaining the loan, paying off the loan, and/or determining another past transaction to flip. (Emphasis added)
As per 0022 and 0023 (underscore shows alleged improvement) an interface element is displayed if a transaction is determined eligible for conversion (0022), and the interface element is removed from display if a transaction is determined no longer eligible for conversion (0023).
[0024] Thus, a service provider may provide intelligent predictions on interface data for display to a user so that the interface may be customized to particular users and entities for flipping transactions into installment loans. This reduces required user navigations through an online service or resource (e.g., a website or other online platform accessible through an application) in order to locate, receive, and/or process relevant installment loan data. Thus, the user may view offers and interact with those offers in a more convenient and simplified interface. Additionally, the user does not need to provide input of data for installment loan acquisition and may view a streamlined version of interface data and processing with the service provider. Further, by suggesting one or more transactions to flip to an installment loan that is specific to a user, the user is more likely to proceed with the installment loan, resulting in benefits for both the loaner and the user, as well as reduced friction for both the service provider and the user in determining installment loan terms. An additional benefit is to future merchants or other entities that the user may need or want to make payments to, which without the ability to convert a previous transaction, would render the user unable to make such payments. The user may be provided with a location or website/application functionality that allows the user to view the eligible past transactions for a flip offer, which may be displayed together so that the user may view all related flip offers through a convenient interface. The user may be able to search within the interface to find particular flip offers and/or past transactions, as well as select the flip offers and/or past transactions for further viewing and interaction. The user may be able to enter their loan and/or credit application information once through the interface and/or feature so that individual transactions may be offered to be flipped to an installment loan (or other offer, such as credit extension, revolving credit transaction, and the like). (Emphasis added)
As per 0024 (underscore shows putative advantages), the display and removal of interface elements based on whether the transaction is eligible for conversion ("intelligent predictions on interface data for display to a user") is said to make user interaction with the UI easier ("reduces required user navigations through an online service or resource"; "user may … interact with … offers in a more convenient and simplified interface").
Consistent with Applicant's specification (as discussed above), according to Applicant's claims if a transaction is determined to be eligible for conversion, then an option to convert the transaction (a selectable interface element) is displayed on a UI (added to the UI in real time), and if it is later determined that the transaction is no longer eligible for conversion, then the option (selectable interface element) is removed from the UI. These eligibility determinations are made by the system analyzing transaction data based on risk and eligibility factors, without requiring a specific user request for the conversion option. The foregoing content (displaying and removing from display the interface element) is referred to by Applicant as dynamic updating of the UI.
Thus, Applicant's claims (consistent with Applicant's specification) merely update the UI (without user request) to display an option to convert when a transaction is found eligible, and to remove the option to convert when the transaction is subsequently found ineligible.
While this claimed arrangement may provide advantages in the way of user convenience, as understood from the above explanation the claimed arrangement is a putative improvement in the abstract idea, not a putative improvement in or relating to UI technology. Rather, as per Applicant's claims and specification, the UI technology (e.g., presenting UI elements) is being used in its ordinary capacity as a tool to implement (apply) the abstract idea. Stated in plain language, the abstract idea (in pertinent part) may be understood as:
when a transaction is determined to be eligible, the option to convert is provided; when the transaction is determined to be no longer eligible, the option to convert is withdrawn
and the application of the abstract idea using the UI technology as a tool may be understood as:
implement (apply) the providing of the option by displaying an interface element, and implement (apply) the withdrawal of the option by removing the interface element.
Example 37
The instant claims are not analogous to the eligible claims of Example 37.
Initially, the problems addressed by Applicant and Example 37 are not comparable. Applicant's problem is that the transactions are presented in a static UI display, specifically in the context of eligibility of transactions for conversion. Applicant's solution is to dynamically update the UI display, including in respect of an interface element to select a transaction for conversion, based on (changing) determinations of eligibility/ ineligibility. See Applicant's specification, e.g., 0002 and 0022-0024 reproduced above.
The problem addressed by Example 37 is that it is difficult for a user to find the most used icons on a GUI because a traditional GUI has numerous icons that are organized alphabetically, by file size, or by file type, and it is not possible to organize the locations of the icons on the GUI in a different way. The solution provided by Example 37 is to automatically relocate the icons of a GUI according to the amount of use of the icons. This is not comparable to Applicant's solution of dynamically updating a UI display, including in respect of an interface element to select a transaction for conversion, based on (changing) determinations of eligibility/ineligibility.
Applicant has recharacterized Example 37 and the instant claims at a higher level of generality than that used in Example 37, in order to be able to group Example 37 and the instant claims under the same description (Response, p. 11). However, this higher level / more general description omits specific content of the claims of Example 37 that is critical to identification of the problem, solution, and reasons for eligibility of Example 37 (claims 1 and 2).
Turning to the claim language, e.g., Example 37's step of automatically moving icons on a GUI close to the start icon based on the determined amount of use of the icons is not comparable to Applicant's steps of dynamically updating a UI by adding an interface element to a UI during display of transaction history when a transaction is determined eligible for conversion and subsequently removing the interface element from the UI when the transaction is no longer eligible.
Core Wireless
Again, in contrast to Applicant's claims, the court in Core Wireless found the claim in question eligible based on an improvement in a UI, which improvement was constituted by three explicit features expressly spelled out in the decision as constituting the improvement in technology.
As the court in Core Wireless explained:
The asserted claims in this case are directed to an improved user interface for computing devices, not to the abstract idea of an index, as argued by LG on appeal.fn3 Although the generic idea of summarizing information certainly existed prior to the invention, these claims are directed to a particular manner of summarizing and presenting information in electronic devices. [1] Claim 1 of the '476 patent requires "an application summary that can be reached directly from the menu," specifying a particular manner by which the summary window must be accessed. [2] The claim further requires the application summary window list a limited set of data, "each of the data in the list being selectable to launch the respective application and enable the selected data to be seen within the respective application." This claim limitation restrains the type of data that can be displayed in the summary window. [3] Finally, the claim recites that the summary window "is displayed while the one or more applications are in an un-launched state," a requirement that the device applications exist in a particular state. These limitations disclose a specific manner of displaying a limited set of information to the user, rather than using conventional user interface methods to display a generic index on a computer. Like the improved systems claimed in Enfish, Thales, Visual Memory, and Finjan, these claims recite a specific improvement over prior systems, resulting in an improved user interface for electronic devices.
The specification confirms that these claims disclose an improved user interface for electronic devices, particularly those with small screens. It teaches that the prior art interfaces had many deficits relating to the efficient functioning of the computer, requiring a user "to scroll around and switch views many times to find the right data/functionality." '020 patent at 1:47-49. Because small screens "tend to need data and functionality divided into many layers or views," id. at 1:29-30, prior art interfaces required users to drill down through many layers to get to desired data or functionality. Id. at 1:29-37. That process could "seem slow, complex and difficult to learn, particularly to novice users." Id. at 1:45-46.
The disclosed invention improves the efficiency of using the electronic device by bringing together "a limited list of common functions and commonly accessed stored data," which can be accessed directly from the main menu. Id. at 2:55-59. Displaying selected data or functions of interest in the summary window allows the user to see the most relevant data or functions "without actually opening the application up." Id. at 3:53-55. The speed of a user's navigation through various views and windows can be improved because it "saves the user from navigating to the required application, opening it up, and then navigating within that application to enable the data of interest to be seen or a function of interest to be activated." Id. at 2:35-39. Rather than paging through multiple screens of options, "only three steps may be needed from start up to reaching the required data/functionality." Id. at 3:2-3. This language clearly indicates that the claims are directed to an improvement in the functioning of computers, particularly those with small screens. (Core Wireless, Discussion, I. Patent Eligibility; emphasis added and bracketed numerals added)
As explained by the court above, in Core Wireless the UI was found to be an improvement in technology based on three technological features ([1], [2], [3]).
Despite the fact that Applicant's claimed invention and Core Wireless may both provide respective advantages (albeit different in nature and scope) in user convenience for accomplishing tasks on a UI, the putative improvements that provide Core Wireless's advantages, namely, the three technological features indicated above, i.e., [1], [2], [3], are not comparable to the putative improvements that provide Applicant's advantages, namely, the displaying of an interface element if a transaction is determined eligible for conversion (e.g., "dynamically updating the user interface by adding the interrace element to the user interface in real-time …") and the removal of the interface element from display if the transaction is determined no longer eligible for conversion ("removing the interface element from the user interface on the client device"), as per the instant independent claims and 0022-0023.
---
PTAB Decision Analysis
For the purposes of the 101 analysis, the subject matter of instant independent claims 21, 31 and 40 does not differ significantly from that of the independent claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 by the PTAB, except for the instant claim amendments.2 As such, the PTAB's analysis of the appealed claims (e.g., under Step 2A, Prong 2) remains applicable to the instant claims, explains why they do not amount to a practical application, and addresses Applicant's remarks.3 Therefore, the PTAB's Step 2A, Prong 2, analysis of the appealed claims is set forth below4, with annotations in brackets indicating the correspondence between the steps of appealed claim 1 in the PTAB's analysis and the steps of instant claim 21 (or 31 or 40). The absence of an annotation indicates that that portion of the PTAB's analysis applies to claim 21 as a whole.
STEP 2A Prong 2
Taking the claim elements separately, the operation performed by the computer at each step of the process is expressed purely in terms of results, devoid of implementation details. Each step recites little more than a conceptual idea.
Step 1 receives data representing user data for authentication. Such representation is itself an abstraction both as an abstract representation and as the features being conceptual ideas. No technological implementation details for such authentication are recited. Step 1 recites the authentication is for access to a digital wallet. There is no step accessing such a wallet, and no technological implementation details for such a wallet are recited. [This applies to instant claim 21, steps 1 and 2.]
Steps 2, 9, and 10 display a transaction history, a transaction element, and a notification. Display of data is generic and conventional, and no technological implementation details are recited. [This applies to instant claim 21, step 8; instant claim 21, step 9 (last step); and instant claim 40, last step, as indicated respectively below. This also applies to instant claim 21, step 1 in respect of the displaying. This also applies to instant claim 21, step 7 since the displaying of the transaction history (appealed claim 1, step 2) involves the transmitting of the transaction history (claim 21, step 7).]
Step 2 recites the transaction history is associated with the digital wallet of step 1. Step 2 does not recite the manner or degree of such association or how it is represented. [This applies to instant claim 21, step 8. This also applies to instant claim 21, step 3, since the displaying of the transaction history (appealed claim 1, step 2) involves the determining of the transaction history (claim 21, step 3).]
Step 9 recites the display is added during the transaction history display. Such timing is generic and conventional and no technological implementation details are recited. There is nothing technological about the timing relationship nor does it create an inventive structural relationship. Step 9 does not recite the manner or character of the recited interface element that is added. [This applies to instant claim 21, step 9 (last step).]
Step 10 further characterizes the notification as information somehow associated with loan terms. Step 10 does not recite the manner or degree of such association or how it is represented. [This applies to instant claim 40, last step.]
Step 3 recites performing a risk analysis of conversions. No technological implementation details are recited and no risk algorithm is recited. Risk analysis is itself another category of abstract idea. See Bilski above. Step 3 recites three data items relied on in the analysis, but these are simply mathematical parameters. [This applies to instant claim 21, step 4.]
Step 4 recites filtering the transactions. No technological implementation details are recited and no filter algorithm is recited. Filtering is a generic conventional part of data queries. [Although instant claims 21, 31 and 40 do not recite the filtering step in question, this applies to instant claim 21, step 5, which amounts to a filtering step.]
Steps 5-7 recite determining qualifications, budget information, and a transaction. Determining is a synonym for generic black box data analysis. No technological implementation details are recited and no determining algorithms are recited. Steps 5-7 recite data items relied on or produced in the analysis, but these are simply generic analytic parameters. [This applies to instant claim 21, step 5. This also applies to instant claim 21, step 3, which does not have an exact counterpart in appealed claim 1 but recites determining a transaction history. This also applies to instant claim 31, last 2 steps, which are comparable to appealed claim 1, step 6 (determining budget information …).]
Step 8 recites generating data for an interface element to enable the user to initiate a conversion of a transaction to an installment loan. No step recites the actual such conversion. No technological implementation details are recited and no generating algorithm is recited. Step 8 recites the interface element comprises a selectable button for the user interface. Such selectable buttons are generic and conventional, being universal to graphical user interfaces. No technological implementation details for the button structure and operation are recited. [This applies to instant claim 21, step 6. This also applies to instant claim 21, step 7 in respect of the claim language "transmitting … the data to the client device."]
In summary, steps 1, 2, 8, and 10 recite basic conventional data operations such as generating, updating, and storing data. Steps 3-7 and 9 recite generic computer processing expressed in terms of results desired by any and all possible means and so present no more than conceptual advice. All purported inventive aspects reside in how the data is interpreted and the results desired, and not in how the process physically enforces such a data interpretation or in how the processing technologically achieves those results.
Viewed as a whole, Appellant's claim 1 simply recites the concept of managing commercial payments by offering to convert qualified cash transactions to installment loan payments based on risk analysis and maintain a total beneath a cap as performed by a generic computer. This is no more than conceptual advice on the parameters for this concept and the generic computer processes necessary to process those parameters, and do not recite any particular implementation.
Claim 1 does not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. Nor does it affect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. The Specification only spells out different generic equipment9 and parameters that might be applied using this concept and the particular steps such conventional processing would entail based on the concept of managing commercial payments by offering to convert qualified cash transactions to installment loan payments based on risk analysis and maintain a total beneath a cap under different scenarios. It does not describe any particular improvement in the manner a computer functions.
(FN 9: The Specification describes a personal computer, a smart phone, laptop/tablet computer, wristwatch with appropriate computer hardware, eyeglasses with appropriate computer hardware, and/or other types of computing devices capable of transmitting and/or receiving data, such as an iPad. Spec. para. 29.)
Instead, claim 1 at issue amounts to nothing significantly more than an instruction to apply managing commercial payments by offering to convert qualified cash transactions to installment loan payments based on risk analysis and maintain a total beneath a cap using some unspecified, generic computer. Under our precedents, that is not enough to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 225-26.
None of the limitations reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
We conclude that claim 1 is directed to achieving the result of managing commercial payments by advising one to offer to convert qualified cash transactions to installment loan payments based on risk analysis and maintain a total beneath a cap, as distinguished from a technological improvement for achieving or applying that result. This amounts to commercial or legal interactions, which fall within certain methods of organizing human activity that constitute abstract ideas. The claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
For the purposes of the 101 analysis, the subject matter of instant independent claims 31 and 40 does not differ significantly from that of instant independent claim 21. Moreover, the PTAB's analysis of appealed claim 1 set forth above addresses the key content of instant claims 31 and 41 that differs from instant claim 21, as per the bracketed annotations above.
The PTAB Decision's Section 101 analysis of the other appealed claims applies also to the other instant claims. Furthermore, the PTAB Decision's Section 101 analysis of the other appealed claims addresses the system components of instant claim 21 (client device and server system). The PTAB Decision's Section 101 analysis of the other appealed claims is set forth below.5
REMAINING CLAIMS
Claim 1 is representative. The other independent method claim 11 is substantially similar at least as regards this analysis. The remaining method claims merely describe process parameters. We conclude that the method claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept itself, and not to the practical application of that concept.
As to the structural claims, they
are no different from the method claims in substance. The method claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic computer; the system claims recite a handful of generic computer components configured to implement the same idea. This Court has long "warn[ed] against" interpreting § 101 "in ways that make patent eligibility 'depend simply on the draftsman's art.'
Alice, 573 U.S. at 226. As a corollary, the claims are not directed to any particular machine.
Finally, the Examiner notes that Applicant's instant arguments in toto are quite similar to a portion of Applicant's arguments that the PTAB Decision quoted and responded to in issuing the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101. Accordingly, a portion of the PTAB Decision's response to Applicant's (Appellant's) arguments is particularly applicable as addressing Applicant's instant arguments and therefore is set forth below.6
APPELLANT'S ARGUMENTS
As there is no Appeal Brief, we respond to Appellant's most recent eligibility arguments filed February 18, 2022 (Remarks). …
We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument that
the limitations relate to a specific usage (real-time data determinations and displays in user interfaces) in a specific situation (when converting interface data for provision of interface elements and selectable buttons) to provide a particular practical application that improves technology (e.g., to provide real-time analysis and data output based on current data and determinations).
Remarks 11.
The only specificity in the claims is that they are specified using words. No technological implementation details are recited. Real time analysis and output are improvements to information, not technology, "the claims are focused on providing information to traders in a way that helps them process information more quickly, not on improving computers or technology. . . . The "tool for presentation" here . . . is simply a generic computer." Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. V. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1378, 1384-85 (Fed. Cir. 2019)(citations omitted).
We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument that
a problem in the present technology [is] where the presentation of interface data for transaction histories is static and does not provide users with additional options for displaying installment loan offers and conversion options. Thus, the present claims selectively analyze data in real-time in order to provide real-time creation of user interface elements having selectable buttons to initiate processes for these conversions. Using these processes, a user is not required to refresh or load additional user interfaces. Thus, the present application provides solutions to a more convenient, faster, and more streamlined version of user interface data display.
Remarks 11.
Managing commercial payments is an administrative problem, not a technological problem. The claims recite a conceptual administrative solution devoid of technological implementation details. Such conceptual functional claiming is generally insufficient to confer eligibility.
At that level of generality, the claims do no more than describe a desired function or outcome, without providing any limiting detail that confines the claim to a particular solution to an identified problem. The purely functional nature of the claim confirms that it is directed to an abstract idea, not to a concrete embodiment of that idea.
Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC V. Amazon.com Inc., 838 F.3d 1266, 1269 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Further, to the extent Appellant argues the claims produce a useful result, utility is not at issue and is generally insufficient to confer eligibility. "That the automation can 'result in life altering consequences,' is laudable, but it does not render it any less abstract." Univ. of Fla. Research Found., Inc. V. Gen. Elec. Co., 916 F.3d 1363, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2019). "[U]tility is not the test for patent eligibility under the Supreme Court's cases." In re Smith, No. 2022-1310, 2022 WL 4112730, at *3 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 9, 2022)(non-precedential)(citing Ass'n for Molecular Pathology V. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 591 (2013)). "[T]he utility of an abstract idea is insufficient to confer patent eligibility." In re Elbaum, No. 2023-1418, 2023 WL 8794636, at *2 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 20, 2023) (non-precedential)(citing Genetic Techs. Ltd. V. Merial L.L.C., 818 F.3d 1369, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 30 and 39 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Relative Term
Claim 30 recites:
providing additional information for the conversion offer via the interface element based on the data.
Similarly, Claim 39 recites:
providing additional information for the flip offer via the interface element.
The term "additional" is a relative term (-- additional to what?). It is not clear what the term "additional" is relative to.
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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 21-40 are directed to a system or method, which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES)
Claims 21, 31 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a system for determining an eligible transaction and presenting an offering to convert the eligible transaction (to an installment loan), monitoring for compliance with offer conditions, and withdrawing the offer if the conditions are no longer met (claim 21); a method for presenting a flip offer to convert a transaction (to an installment loan), monitoring additional transactions to determine if a total transaction amount exceeds a limit, which would invalidate the flip offer, and withdrawing the offer if invalidated (claim 31); and a method for presenting an offer to convert a transaction (to an installment loan) based on determining that the user has insufficient funds to meet a payment for a transaction, monitoring for compliance with offer conditions, and withdrawing the offer if the conditions are no longer met (claim 40) (see the Abstract, which clarifies that the conversion/flip offer is paradigmatically for converting a transaction into an installment loan).
For claim 21, the limitations (indicated below in bold) of:
a client device comprising a first non-transitory memory and one or more first hardware processors coupled to the first non-transitory memory and configured to read instructions from the first non-transitory memory to cause the system to perform client-side operations comprising:
displaying an authentication interface in an application on the client device that enables authenticating a user to access a digital wallet; and
a server system comprising a second non-transitory memory and one or more second hardware processors coupled to the second non-transitory memory and configured to read instructions from the second non-transitory memory to cause the system to perform server-side operations comprising:
authenticating the user that enables access to the digital wallet of the user based on an authentication input received via the authentication interface;
determining a transaction history comprising a plurality of transactions associated with the digital wallet;
performing a risk analysis of the plurality of transactions for different conversion offers based on the transaction history and eligibility factors for the plurality of transactions for the different conversion offers;
determining a transaction from the plurality of transactions for a conversion offer based on the risk analysis and a risk threshold associated with the user;
generating data for an interface element transmissible to the client device of the user that enables the interface element to be displayed on a user interface of the application, wherein the interface element enables the user to initiate a conversion of the transaction based on the conversion offer via a selectable button presented in the user interface;
transmitting the transaction history and the data to the client device;
wherein the client-side operations further comprise:
displaying the transaction history in the user interface based on the server system authenticating the user, wherein the transaction history is displayed with the plurality of transactions associated with the digital wallet;
in response to the client-side operations displaying the transaction history, dynamically updating the user interface by adding the interface element to the user interface in real time during the displaying the transaction history in the user interface on the client device, wherein the interface element is added to the user interface by the server system using the data without requiring user input to request the conversion offer on the client device;
wherein the server-side operations further comprise:
monitoring usage of payment instruments for the digital wallet for compliance with one or more offer conditions of the conversion offer;
determining that the one or more offer conditions are no longer met based on the monitoring; and
removing the interface element from the user interface on the client device.
as drafted, constitute a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers "certain methods of organizing human activity," specifically, "fundamental economic practices or principles" and/or "commercial or legal interactions," but for recitation of generic computer components. The Examiner notes that "fundamental economic practices" or "fundamental economic principles" describe concepts relating to the economy and commerce, including hedging, insurance, and mitigating risks, and "commercial interactions" or "legal interactions" include agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)II.A.,B. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers "fundamental economic practices or principles" and/or "commercial or legal interactions," but for recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, claim 21 recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A - Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea.)
For claim 31, the limitations (indicated below in bold) of:
authenticating, at a server system of a service provider, a user that enables access to an account of the user via a user interface on a client device of the user, wherein the account is associated with a transaction history of transactions processed using a plurality of payment instruments associated with the account;
transmitting, by the server system to the client device, the transaction history;
displaying the transaction history by the client device in the user interface;
performing, at the server system, a risk analysis of a conversion of one or more of the transactions to a flip offer associated with an amount of the one or more of the transactions;
generating, by the server system, data for an interface element, wherein the interface element comprises a selectable interface option that enables the user to accept the flip offer;
transmitting the data by the server system to the client device;
dynamically updating, by the server system at the client device, the user interface by adding the interface element to the user interface in real time during the displaying the transaction history in the user interface on the client device, wherein the interface element is added to the user interface by the server system using the data without requiring user input to request the flip offer on the client device;
monitoring, by the server system through the digital wallet, additional transactions performed by the user;
determining, by the server system, whether the flip offer remains valid based on the monitoring, wherein the flip offer is invalidated if a total amount of at least one of the transactions or the additional transactions meets a budget cap; and
in response to determining that the flip offer is invalidated, removing the interface element from the user interface on the client device.
as drafted, constitute a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers "certain methods of organizing human activity," specifically, "fundamental economic practices or principles" and/or "commercial or legal interactions," but for recitation of generic computer components. The Examiner notes that "fundamental economic practices" or "fundamental economic principles" describe concepts relating to the economy and commerce, including hedging, insurance, and mitigating risks, and "commercial interactions" or "legal interactions" include agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)II.A.,B. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers "fundamental economic practices or principles" and/or "commercial or legal interactions," but for recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, claim 31 recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A - Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea.)
For claim 40, the limitations (indicated below in bold) of:
displaying a transaction history in a user interface on a device of the user, wherein the transaction history comprises previous transactions associated with funding instruments linked to a digital wallet;
determining, by a server system based on the digital wallet of the user, that the user has insufficient funds linked to the digital wallet to satisfy one of an upcoming payment for a transaction or a payment for a previous transaction made for one of the previous transactions using a corresponding one of the funding instruments;
performing a risk analysis by the server system for a conversion offer for at least one of the previous transactions into an amount corresponding to the upcoming payment or the payment;
generating the conversion offer for the at least one of the previous transactions by the server system;
generating a selectable interface option by the server system for the user interface on the device that enables the user to convert the one of the subset of the previous transactions to a loan via the user interface;
dynamically updating the user interface by the server system on the device in real-time, wherein the dynamically updating comprises adding the selectable interface option for the conversion offer to the user interface during the displaying the transaction history in the user interface; and wherein the selectable interface option is added to the user interface by the server system without requiring user input to request the conversion offer on the device;
displaying a notification by the server system in the user interface on the device with the transaction history, wherein the notification comprises information associated with a validity of the conversion offer and one or more terms for the conversion offer,
monitoring, by the server system, usage of the funding instruments linked to the digital wallet for compliance with one or more offer conditions of the conversion offer;
determining that the one or more offer conditions are no longer met based on the monitoring; and
removing the selectable interface option from the user interface on the device.
as drafted, constitute a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers "certain methods of organizing human activity," specifically, "fundamental economic practices or principles" and/or "commercial or legal interactions," but for recitation of generic computer components. The Examiner notes that "fundamental economic practices" or "fundamental economic principles" describe concepts relating to the economy and commerce, including hedging, insurance, and mitigating risks, and "commercial interactions" or "legal interactions" include agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)II.A.,B. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers "fundamental economic practices or principles" and/or "commercial or legal interactions," but for recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, claim 40 recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A - Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea.)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 21, 31 and 40 recite the additional elements of a client device comprising a first non-transitory memory and one or more first hardware processors coupled to the first non-transitory memory and configured to read instructions from the first non-transitory memory to cause the system to perform client-side operations; displaying an authentication interface in an application on the client device; digital (wallet); a server system comprising a second non-transitory memory and one or more second hardware processors coupled to the second non-transitory memory and configured to read instructions from the second non-transitory memory to cause the system to perform server-side operations; the authentication interface; an interface element to be displayed on a user interface of the application, wherein the interface element; a selectable button presented in the user interface; the user interface; updating the user interface by adding the interface element to the user interface; the user interface on the client device; wherein the interface element is added to the user interface by the server system; and removing the interface element from the user interface on the client device (the foregoing recited in claim 21); a server system of a service provider; a user interface on a client device of the user; the client device; wherein the interface element comprises a selectable interface option; updating, by the server system at the client device, the user interface by adding the interface element to the user interface; the user interface on the client device; wherein the interface element is added to the user interface by the server system; digital (wallet); and removing the interface element from the user interface on the client device (the foregoing recited in claim 31); and a user interface on a device of the user; digital (wallet); a server system; generating a selectable interface option by the server system for the user interface on the device; updating the user interface by the server system on the device, wherein the updating comprises adding the selectable interface option for the conversion offer to the user interface; wherein the selectable interface option is added to the user interface by the server system; the device; and removing the selectable interface option from the user interface on the device (the foregoing recited in claim 40), that implement the abstract idea. These additional elements are not described by the applicant and they are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., one or more generic computer elements performing generic computer functions), such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer elements. Accordingly, even in combination 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. (Step 2A - prong 2: NO. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a client device comprising a first non-transitory memory and one or more first hardware processors coupled to the first non-transitory memory and configured to read instructions from the first non-transitory memory to cause the system to perform client-side operations; displaying an authentication interface in an application on the client device; digital (wallet); a server system comprising a second non-transitory memory and one or more second hardware processors coupled to the second non-transitory memory and configured to read instructions from the second non-transitory memory to cause the system to perform server-side operations; the authentication interface; an interface element to be displayed on a user interface of the application, wherein the interface element; a selectable button presented in the user interface; the user interface; updating the user interface by adding the interface element to the user interface; the user interface on the client device; wherein the interface element is added to the user interface by the server system; and removing the interface element from the user interface on the client device (the foregoing recited in claim 21); a server system of a service provider; a user interface on a client device of the user; the client device; wherein the interface element comprises a selectable interface option; updating, by the server system at the client device, the user interface by adding the interface element to the user interface; the user interface on the client device; wherein the interface element is added to the user interface by the server system; digital (wallet); and removing the interface element from the user interface on the client device (the foregoing recited in claim 31); and a user interface on a device of the user; digital (wallet); a server system; generating a selectable interface option by the server system for the user interface on the device; updating the user interface by the server system on the device, wherein the updating comprises adding the selectable interface option for the conversion offer to the user interface; wherein the selectable interface option is added to the user interface by the server system; the device; and removing the selectable interface option from the user interface on the device (the foregoing recited in claim 40), to perform the noted steps amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer elements. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer elements cannot provide an inventive concept ("significantly more"). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not provide significantly more. As such, claims 21, 31 and 40 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more.)
Dependent claims 22-30 and 32-39 are similarly rejected because they further define/narrow the abstract idea of independent claims 21, 31 and 40 as discussed above, and/or do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept such as would render the claims eligible, whether each is considered individually or as an ordered combination.
As for further defining/narrowing the abstract idea:
Dependent claims 22 and 32 merely further describe determining budget information for the user that is associated with the digital wallet, wherein the budget information includes a preestablished amount required to be paid from the user to a payee, wherein the transaction for the conversion offer is determined further based on the budget information.
Dependent claims 23 and 33 merely further describe wherein the preestablished amount is associated with a recurring bill of the user having one or more past payments by the user, and wherein the budget information is determined, at least in part, based on the one or more past payments.
Dependent claims 24 and 34 merely further describe determining that the budget information indicates that the user owes the preestablished payment amount at a future time.
Dependent claims 25 and 35 merely further describe displaying a notification … with the transaction history …, wherein the notification comprises information associated with validity information and terms of the flip offer.
Dependent claims 26 and 36 merely further describe prior to the determining the transaction (claim 26) / the performing the risk analysis (claim 36), filtering the (plurality of) transactions by transaction types to remove certain transactions (from the plurality of transactions) that are associated with credit purchases or a partner service provider.
Dependent claim 27 merely further describes wherein the risk analysis is further based on a payment instrument of the … wallet used for one or more of the plurality of transactions, and determining, … based on the risk analysis and the filtering, that a subset of the filtered plurality of transactions qualifies for the different conversion offers; while similarly dependent claim 37 merely further describes determining, … based on the risk analysis and the filtering, that a subset of the filtered transactions qualifies for the conversion.
Dependent claims 28 and 38 merely further describe scoring (filtered) transactions for conversion (offers), and selecting transactions from the subset of (filtered) transactions based a highest score.
Dependent claim 29 merely further describes wherein the conversion offer comprises an offer for an installment loan.
Dependent claims 30 and 39 merely further describe providing additional information for the conversion/flip offer via the interface element based on the data.
As for additional elements:
Claim 22 recites “the server-side operations” and "digital" (wallet). This recitation is at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer element. Even in combination these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claims 24 and 26 recite “the server-side operations.” This recitation is at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer element. Even in combination these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 25 recites “the client-side operations,” "the client device" and "the user interface." This recitation is at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer element. Even in combination these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 27 recites "digital" (wallet), “the server-side operations” and "a recommendation engine." This recitation is at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer element. Even in combination these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 28 recites “the server-side operations” and "the recommendation engine." This recitation is at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer element. Even in combination these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 30 recites “the server-side operations” and "receiving a selection of the selectable button via the interface element in the user interface." This recitation is at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer element. Even in combination these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 32 recites "digital" (wallet). This recitation is at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer element. Even in combination these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 35 recites "the client device" and "the user interface." This recitation is at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer element. Even in combination these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claims 37 and 38 recite a "recommendation engine." This recitation is at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer element. Even in combination these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 39 recites "receiving a selection of the selectable button via the interface element in the user interface." This recitation is at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer element. Even in combination these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claims 23, 29, 33, 34 and 36 do not recite any additional elements, and accordingly, for the reasons provided above with respect to the independent claims, are not patent eligible.
Therefore, dependent claims 22-30 and 32-39 are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon, as set forth in the accompanying Notice of References Cited (PTO-892), is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Among the cited references:
Cueli (US-20140122338-A1) teaches converting a previously completed transaction to an installment loan, including displaying a list of transactions and a list of installment loan options;
Dennison (US-20170053254-A1) teaches a bill pay application that determines if a user has sufficient funds to pay a bill, and lends a user money if the user has insufficient funds to pay a bill;
Jagalpure (US-20200160295-A1) teaches determining at a merchant POS if (multiple) transactions are eligible for an installment loan plan;
Elyada (US-20120095980-A1) teaches presenting search results, analyzing the search results, and finding keywords to group the search results, where additional keywords may be added to the UI over time as they are found, while the user interacts with the search results;
Sanchez (US-20140100931-A1) teaches split bill payment;
Goodwin (US-20140129357-A1) teaches an intelligent payment system that determines the best payment instrument to use for a current transaction and presents a rank-ordered list of payment instruments;
Walker (US-6064987-A), Pinto (US-20200151697-A1), Ferreira da Silva (US-20110238567-A1), and Welch (US-20120191594-A1) teach, inter alia, details of converting transactions to installment loans;
Macedo (US-20170193497-A1) teaches, inter alia, details of digital wallets in the context of converting transactions to installment loans;
Griffin (US-20100217706-A1) and Barkas (US-20190311429-A1) teach, inter alia, details of bill payment services and determining that users have insufficient funds to pay bills;
at least Berry (US-20200387879-A1), Pinto (US-20200151697-A1), Barkas (US-20190311429-A1), Ferreira da Silva (US-20110238567-A1), Griffin (US-20100217706-A1), and Walker (US-6064987-A) teach inter alia, a maximum cap on an installment loan amount or on a similar spending amount;
Plews ("Improving User Experience With Real-Time Features") teaches, inter alia, real time functionality in apps, including live in-app notifications, regarding updates, progress of a journey and location data, new info/messages received, and responses to a support ticket; and
Hart (US-20210011948-A1) teaches updating a list of transactions and related information displayed in a GUI, in response to generation/receipt of updated/revised information regarding the transactions or in response to user input.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS W PINSKY whose telephone number is (571)272-4131. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 am - 5:30 pm ET.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached on 571-270-3445. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DOUGLAS W PINSKY/
Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/JESSICA LEMIEUX/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626
1 PTAB Decision issued 09/09/2025.
2 Regarding the instant claim amendments, most of the content thereof is part of the abstract idea (see bolded content in rejection hereinbelow). Of the remaining content (non-bolded content in rejection hereinbelow), a portion of it merely repeats additional elements that were already in the claims prior to the instant claim amendments (e.g., "wherein the interface element is added to the user interface"). The sole significant new additional element content of the instant claim amendments is "removing the interface element/selectable interface option from the user interface on the client device/device." This new additional element content is comparable to the pre-existing additional element content of "adding the interface element to the user interface." As such, this new additional element content does not significantly alter the analysis under 35 U.S.C. 101 and is deemed addressed by the PTAB's analysis of the appealed claims.
3 In particular, the reader's attention is directed to the last portion of the PTAB analysis set forth below, under the heading "APPELLANT'S ARGUMENTS."
4 This PTAB analysis is from the PTAB Decision issued 09/09/2025, pp. 21-25.
5 This PTAB analysis is from the PTAB Decision issued 09/09/2025, p. 27.
6 This PTAB analysis is from the PTAB Decision issued 09/09/2025, pp. 28-30.
Prosecution Insights