DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to the Request for Reconsideration dated September 16, 2025.
Claims 1-20 and 22-40 have been canceled.
Claim 21 has been amended.
Claims 41-42 are newly added.
Claims 21 and 41-42 are currently pending and has been examined.
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 .
Claim Interpretation – Broadest Reasonable Interpretation
7. In determining patentability of an invention over the prior art, all claim limitations have been considered and interpreted using the “broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during the examination of a patent application since the applicant may then amend his claims.” See In re Prater and Wei, 162 USPQ 541, 550 (CCPA 1969); MPEP § 2111. Applicant always has the opportunity to amend the claims during prosecution, and broad interpretation by the examiner reduces the possibility that the claim, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified. See In re Prater, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969); MPEP § 2111. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). See also MPEP 2173.05(q) All claim limitations have been considered. Additionally, all words in the claims have been considered in judging the patentability of the claims against the prior art. See MPEP 2143.03.
Claim limitations that contain statement(s) such as “if, may, might, can, could”, are treated as containing optional language. As matter of linguistic precision, optional claim elements do not narrow claim limitations, since they can always be omitted.
Claim limitations that contain statement(s) such as “wherein, whereby”, that fail to further define the steps or acts to be performed in method claims or the discrete physical structure required of system claims.
Similarly, a method step exercised or triggered upon the satisfaction of a condition, where there remains the possibility that the condition was not satisfied under the broadest reasonable interpretation, is an optional claim limitation. see MPEP § 2103(I)(C); In re Johnson, 77 USPQ2d 1788 (Fed Cir 2006). As the Applicant does not address what happens should the optional claim limitations fail, Examiner assumes that nothing happens (i.e., the method stops). An alternate interpretation is that merely the claim limitations based upon the condition are not triggered or performed.
The subject matter of a properly construed claim is defined by the terms that limit its scope. It is this subject matter that must be examined.
As a general matter, grammar and the plain meaning of terms as understood by one having ordinary skill in the art used in a claim will dictate whether, and to what extent, the language limits the claim scope. see MPEP §2013(I)(C). Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. see MPEP §2013(I)(C).
Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art. See, e.g., Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2009). See MPEP 2111.04, 2143.03.
Language in a method or system claim that states only the intended use or intended result, but does not result in a manipulative difference in the steps of the method claim nor a structural difference between the system claim and the prior art, fails to distinguish the claims from the prior art. In other words, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
The following types of claim language may raise a question as to its limiting effect (this list is not exhaustive):
Statements of intended use or field of use, including statements of purpose or intended use in the preamble (MPEP 2111.02);
Clauses such as “adapted to”, “adapted for”, “wherein”, and “whereby” (MPEP 2111.04)
Contingent limitations (MPEP 2111.04)
Printed matter (MPEP 2111.05) and
Functional language associated with a claim term (MPEP 2181)
Examiner notes that during examination, “claims … are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and … claim language should be read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” See In re Bond, 15 USPQ 1566, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1990), citing In re Sneed, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983). However, "in examining the specification for proper context, [the examiner] will not at any time import limitations from the specification into the claims". See CollegeNet, Inc. v. ApplyYourself, Inc., 75 USPQ2d 1733, 1738 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Construing claims broadly during prosecution is not unfair to the applicant, because the applicant has the opportunity to amend the claims to obtain more precise claim coverage. See In re Yamamoto, 222 USPQ 934, 936 (Fed. Cir. 1984), citing In re Prater, 162 USPQ 541, 550 (CCPA 1969).
As such, while all claim limitations have been considered and all words in the claims have been considered in judging the patentability of the claimed invention, the following italicized language is interpreted as not further limiting the scope of the claimed invention.
As in Claim 41:
wherein the second user is issuing credit for a service or product offered by the second user.
As in Claim 42:
wherein the first user is sending the IOU request to the second user as a method of payment for goods or services in a retail setting.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
8. Claims 21 and 41-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The amendment filed September 16, 2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is italicized as follows:
Claim 21 recites in part:
“connecting the first user using the first electronic device to the second user using the second electronic device as a result of the first user generating an IOU account-specific barcode using the first electronic device, showing the barcode to the second user, and the second user scanning the barcode with the second electronic device;”
“granting account access between the first user and the second user, after the first user and the second user are connected, as a result of the first user or second user requesting account access and subsequent reciprocal access given to both parties when either party grants access”
“accepting the IOU credit request terms or selecting new IOU offer terms for the IOU transaction by the second user using the second electronic device after the second user reviews the displayed IOU credit request”
“displaying the IOU terms, selected by the second user, to the first user using the first electronic device”
In the manner currently claimed, it appears that Applicant is attempting to claim elements differently and/or broader than the specification allows.
As to the recitation of an account-specific barcode that is then shown to the second user and scanned by the second user, while the specification does refer to a IOU code or custom code, it is only represented as a QR code in the drawings, not as a barcode which is broader than the disclosure specifies. Applicant is requested to amend the claims to claim the account-specific code as a QR code as disclosed by the drawings.
As to the granting of account access, the specification indicates that the first user and second user can be connected, however it does not appear that reciprocal access is given to both party when either party grants access. It appears that both parties have to grant access to each other as claimed.
As to the selecting new IOU offer terms for the IOU transaction by the second user after the second users reviews the displayed IOU credit request and displaying the IOU terms selected by the user, there does not appear to be support for these limitations. While the specification does refer to IOU credit requests and IOU offers, there does not seem to be disclosure for the first user making a credit request and the second user counter offering new IOU offer terms for the transaction and sending it back to the first user.
Dependent claims 41-42 are further rejected as dependent on a rejected base claim.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
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.
9. Claims 21 and 41-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed idea is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent Claim 21 recites a method of performing a credit transaction between a first user and a second user comprising: registering the first user, wherein the first user may be registered to only one IOU transaction account; registering the second user wherein the second user may be registered to only one IOU transaction account and the second user is an individual or a business entity offering products and/or services to the first user; connecting the first user to the second user; granting account access between the first user and the second user, after the first user and second user are connected, as a result of the first user or the second user requesting account access and subsequent reciprocal access given to both parties when either party grants access; selecting IOU credit request terms of an IOU request by the first user, the IOU credit request terms including a requested credit amount, a requested interest rate, and requested repayment terms; sending the IOU credit request from the first user to the second user by selecting an IOU credit request by the first user, the IOU credit request authorizing private IOU credit information of the first user to be shared with the second user, after the first user selects the IOU credit request; displaying the IOU credit request to the second user, the IOU credit request including: an IOU credit report of the first user, an IOU credit score that is independent of a traditional credit score of the first user, a number of previous IOU transactions of the first user, number of other users having credit transactions with the first user, credit amounts and available credit given by other users; and a percentage of IOU full paybacks within a defined period; accepting the IOU credit request terms or selecting new IOU offer terms for the IOU transaction by the second user after the second user reviews the displayed IOU credit request; displaying the IOU terms, selected by the second user to the first user; issuing the credit to the first user from the second user when the first user accepts the displayed IOU terms; tracking an IOU transaction account of the first user and notifying the first user of any IOU payments due to the second user; updating the IOU credit report each time an IOU credit transaction, an IOU loan transaction, or an IOU payment is made by the first user; and tracking an IOU transaction account of the second user and notifying the second user of repayment progress of the first user.
The series of steps recited above describe fundamental economic practices, commercial or legal interactions and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people and mental processes and are thus grouped as certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes which are abstract ideas.
ANALYSIS:
STEP 1:
Does the claimed invention fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition matter?
Yes, the claimed invention discloses methods of performing a credit transaction between a first user and a second user via a series of steps as disclosed above.
STEP 2A:
Prong One: Does the Claim Recite A Judicial Exception (An Abstract Idea, Law of Nature or Natural Phenomenon)? (If Yes, Proceed to Prong Two, If No, the claim is not directed to a judicial exception and qualifies as subject matter patent eligible material)
As recited above, the series of steps recited describe fundamental economic practices, commercial or legal interactions and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people and mental processes (including observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and are thus grouped as certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes which are abstract ideas.
Claim 21 recites an IOU platform, a first electronic device, a second electronic device, and an IOU account-specific barcode.
The claims recite a first electronic device and a second electronic device and are applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The recited IOU platform and the generated IOU account-specific barcode appears to be software and a software driven functionality. (Step 2A – Prong 1: Yes, the claims are abstract)
Prong Two: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application of the Exception? (If Yes, the claim is not directed to a judicial exception and qualifies as subject matter patent eligible material. If No, Proceed to Step 2B)
The claims do not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception because the claims do not provide improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, are not applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, are not applying the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine, are not effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and are not applying the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
In particular, the claims only recite IOU platform, an IOU account-specific barcode, a first electronic device and a second electronic device which are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions, i.e., receiving information, gathering and examining information, outputting information) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, Claim 21 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A – Prong 2: No, the additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
STEP 2B: If there is an exception, determine if the claim as a whole recites significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: i) receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); 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); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added)); ii) performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims."); iii) electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2359, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log); iv) storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; v) electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (optical character recognition); and vi) a web browser’s back and forward button functionality, Internet Patent Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015). (MPEP §2106.05(d)(II))
This listing is not meant to imply that all computer functions are well‐understood, routine, conventional activities, or that a claim reciting a generic computer component performing a generic computer function is necessarily ineligible. Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking). On the other hand, courts have held computer-implemented processes to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus eligible), where generic computer components are able in combination to perform functions that are not merely generic. (MPEP §2106.05(d)(II) – emphasis added)
Below are examples of other types of activity that the courts have found to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: recording a customer’s order, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1244, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1856 (Fed. Cir. 2016); shuffling and dealing a standard deck of cards, In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816, 819, 118 USPQ2d 1245, 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2016); restricting public access to media by requiring a consumer to view an advertisement, Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716-17, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1755-56 (Fed. Cir. 2014); identifying undeliverable mail items, decoding data on those mail items, and creating output data, Return Mail, Inc. v. U.S. Postal Service, -- F.3d --, -- USPQ2d --, slip op. at 32 (Fed. Cir. August 28, 2017); presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; determining an estimated outcome and setting a price, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; and arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1331, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (MPEP 2106.05(d))
Here, the steps are receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs – MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); performing repetitive calculations (Bancorp – MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); storing and retrieving information in memory (Versata, OIP Techs – MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and electronically scanning or extracting data (Content Extraction – MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); creating output data (Return Mail Inc.) and presenting offers and gathering statistics (OIP Techs - MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)– all of which have been recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine and conventional functions.
The claims are directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements that do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because they require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known in the industry.
For the next step of the analysis, it must be determined whether the limitations present in the claims represent a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea. A claim directed to a judicial exception must be analyzed to determine whether the elements of the claim, considered both individually and as an ordered combination are sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the exception itself.
For the role of a computer in a computer implemented invention to be deemed meaningful in the context of this analysis, it must involve more than performance of “well-understood, routine, [and] conventional activities previously known to the industry.” Further, “the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”
Applicant’s specification discloses the following:
“FIG. 1 is a block diagram of Getting Started and opening an IOU (I Owe You) Account 102 (also referred to as account), in accordance with one embodiment of the invention (also referred to as IOU Notes). A user 100 (individual or business) looks to open an IOU (I Owe You) Account 102 from IOU (I Owe You) Platform 104 (also referred to as Platform) and can do so from any device with an Internet connection and browser 106 such as cell phone 108, tablet device 110, laptop computer 112, or desktop computer 114. User 100 can either download the IOU Account 102 application to their device 108, 110, 112, or 114 from internet 106 either by IOU Account website 118 or third party websites 196 or access IOU Account 102 via internet portal 106 from the IOU Account website 118 from any of those devices. All communications, transmissions, customer data, etc. that are processed on IOU Platform regardless of device or method use the industry standard and ongoing practice of security measures, encryption and protection protocols to ensure safety at all tie for the platform and its users.” (See Applicant Specification para 0055)
“FIG. 4 is a screenshot of an example login page 236 for user 100 to access their IOU Account 102 on the IOU Platform 104 by entering their (email address and password) and selecting the submit button 120. Account Login 236 can be accessed from any device with an Internet connection and browser 106 such as cell phone 108, tablet device 110, laptop computer 112, or desktop computer 114. User 100 can either download the IOU Account 102 application to their devices 108, 110, 112, or 114 from internet 106 either by IOU Account website 118 or third party websites 120 or access IOU Account 102 via internet portal 106 from the IOU Account website 118 from any of those devices.” (See Applicant Specification para 0060)
Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system.
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. The collective functions appear to be implemented using conventional computer systemization.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Upon reconsideration of the indicia noted under Step 2A in concert with the Step 2B considerations, the additional claim element(s) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The same analysis applies in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claim does not provide an inventive concept significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The independent claim 21 is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claim does not provide significantly more)
Dependent Claims 41 and 42 are further define the abstract idea that is presented in Independent Claim 21 and are further grouped as certain methods of organizing human activity and are abstract for the same reasons and basis as presented above. No additional hardware components other than those found in Independent Claim 21 is recited, thus it is presumed that the claim is further utilizing the same generic systemization as presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the exception or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination.
Thus, Claims 21 and 41-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Relevant Prior Art Not Currently Being Applied
Vadhri (US PG Pub. 2009/0327010 A1) – discloses a system for facilitating financial transactions over a network that includes a first user device, a second user device and a payment processing device. (See Vadhri Abstract) The first user device is adapted to allow a first user to send an invitation to a second user, via a network, to accept a promise to pay (IOU). (See Vadhri Abstract) The second user device is adapted to allow the second user to generate a response to the invitation via the network. (See Vadhri Abstract) The payer may initiate the request via a service application or at a server maintained by the service provider that may include an IOU application. (See Vadhri para 42-43)
Purves et al. (US PG Pub. 2013/0346302) – discloses a remote portal bill payment platform that transforms user bill payment requests messages into transaction bill payment transaction settlements and the use of Bill Pay. (See Purves Abstract) In one example embodiment, Purves discloses that a user may wish to make a purchase at a merchant but wishes to “snooze” the bill, part of a bill, a particular item or set of items in a bill, and the like at checkout, rather than after the purchase has been made. (See Purves para 249) This may involve deciding the time period the user has to pay off the bill, how much the payment is each month, the number of total payments needed to pay off the bill, etc. (See Purves para 249) In some instances a merchant may retrieve a “snooze” offer sent by an issuer or by Bill Pay and send a Bill “snooze” offer message to the user. (See Purves para 251) In some implementations, an estimated time of payment score (ETA score) may be calculated based on how long the user takes to pay off all of his “snoozed” bills. (See Purves para 262 and Figs. 22A-B)
Mitchell (US PG Pub. 2020/0387923) – discloses systems and methods for tracking transactions across multiple payment processing networks, wherein the system is operable to, in one embodiment, receive at least one real-time purchase record and match elements of the real-time purchase record to a consumer profile, wherein the system is operable to provide financing offers, incentives, and rewards based on the matching and the at least one real-time purchase record. (See Mitchell Abstract) In an embodiment, Mitchell discloses purchase financing offers that include financing options and rates. (See Mitchell paras 188-190)
Williams (US PG Pub. 2017/0061535)- discloses a computer implemented method for facilitating loans from a plurality of borrowers via a lending platform. (See Williams Abstract) The method includes reviewing at least one social media account or profile of each of the plurality of borrowers and assigning a credit score to each of the borrowers based at least in part on content of the at least one social media account or profile of each borrower. (See Williams Abstract) The method further includes providing information relating to the requested loan amount and the assigned credit score of each of the plurality of borrowers to a plurality of lenders via the lending platform. (See Williams Abstract)
Fahmy (US 2012/0096088 A1) discloses presenting a list of users and privacy mode for searching for information regarding financial transactions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 16, 2025 have been fully considered as further detailed below.
Regarding the 101 Rejections:
Examiner notes that the 101 Rejection has been updated with the newly amended limitations.
Applicant argues that Claim 21, as amended, is able to provide a service and functionality not found in the current credit granting processes. (See Applicant’s Arguments dated 09/16/2025, page 1) Applicant continues, arguing that a user is able to extend credit to another in a simplified and safe manner where the users are able to transact an IOU transaction at a point of sale, on the fly, without the need for an extensive and time consuming application process which enables micro lending easy for businesses and individuals. (Id.)
Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s arguments. The manner of creating an internal score for a particular user based only on the history of that user with a particular user is very similar to the process used for trade credit for goods purchased between buyers and suppliers where a buyer will build up trade credit with a particular supplier in a process that is separate from public credit bureau credit scores.
The claim is not subject matter patent eligible. The 101 Rejection is maintained.
Regarding the 103 Rejections:
As amended, there is no prior art rejection being applied at this time.
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMBREEN A. ALLADIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3533. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5.
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, Abhishek Vyas can be reached at 571-270-1836. 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.
/AMBREEN A. ALLADIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691 January 11, 2026