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 . This office action is in response to applicant's communication of March 2, 2026. The rejections are stated below. Claims 1-8 and 11-18 are pending and have been examined.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/2/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments/Amendment
The affidavit under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 3/2/206 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 1-8 and 11-18 based upon 35 U.S.C. 101 as set forth in the last Office action because: Examiner has carefully reviewed the Declaration of Dr. David Whitmire submitted by Applicant in support of patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. While the Declaration provides extensive background regarding Dr. Whitmire´s credentials and opinions, it does not overcome the legal deficiencies identified in the outstanding rejection. For the reasons set forth below, the Examiner maintains the § 101 rejection of claims 1 through 8 and 11 through 18. The ultimate legal determination of patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is a question of law for the Office and the courts. Expert testimony may be considered, but it cannot dictate the legal conclusion. MPEP § 716.01(c) provides that while expert declarations may be given consideration, the opinion is not on the ultimate legal conclusion at issue. The Federal Circuit has consistently held that the § 101 analysis is a legal determination based on the claim language and the specification, not on expert opinions about whether the claimed subject matter is abstract or inventive. See, e.g., Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (explaining that eligibility is a question of law that may contain underlying factual issues, but expert testimony on the ultimate conclusion is not dispositive). The Declaration opines that the claims “integrate any alleged judicial exception into a practical application” and “amount to significantly more than any abstract idea.” SMED ¶ 14. These are the precise legal conclusions the Examiner must determine. The Examiner has considered the Declaration but finds that it does not identify any concrete technological improvement or specific non abstract implementation detail that transforms the claims into patent eligible subject matter.
The Declaration repeatedly frames the problem as one of user psychology, behavioral intent, and trust. SMED ¶¶ 10, 11. The Declaration states that the inventors aimed to “strike the appropriate balance between providing a new and desired function without making the customer uneasy about the modification.” SMED ¶ 10. This is a business or marketing problem, not a technical problem unique to computing. The Federal Circuit has held that problems related to user perception, trust, or ease of use, when solved by conventional computer operations, do not transform an abstract idea into a patent eligible invention. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (claims directed to “providing information to a user in a useful manner” held abstract).
The specification itself acknowledges that the desired outcome is to “drive additional sales and satisfaction” and “create a win situation for customers and vendors.” ¶ 0023. These are economic and behavioral goals, not technological improvements. The fact that the claimed solution uses a browser extension to achieve these goals does not make the claims directed to technology rather than to the abstract idea of offering alternative financing.
The Declaration asserts that the “information gathering and display paradigm” is unconventional in its combination. SMED ¶ 10. However, each of the claimed operations is a routine function that browser extensions perform. Monitoring browser activity, determining a merchant identity from a URL or page content, referencing a table of loan amounts, displaying an interface element, generating a virtual card, detecting a checkout page, and populating payment fields are all standard functions available in countless browser extensions, from password managers to price comparison tools.
The Declaration attempts to elevate these operations by emphasizing that the icon is placed in “otherwise empty space” and formatted consistently with existing icons. SMED ¶ 10. These are design choices regarding the appearance and placement of a graphical element. The claims do not explain how the browser extension identifies “empty space” or how it determines the “format consistent in terms of size and shape.” The specification also lacks such detail. Merely reciting a desired outcome (e.g., an icon that looks natural and does not interfere) without a specific technical implementation does not supply a practical application under Alice. See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims reciting results rather than means are abstract).
The Declaration argues that the combination of steps is unconventional because it solves the balance problem. SMED ¶ 10. However, under the Supreme Court´s precedent, an otherwise abstract idea does not become patent eligible merely because it is implemented using a “combination” of routine computer functions. Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent ineligible abstract idea into a patent eligible invention.”). The Federal Circuit has repeatedly rejected arguments that combining well known steps creates an inventive concept. See, e.g., Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (holding that adding routine steps to an abstract idea does not confer eligibility).
The Declaration does not identify any specific technical obstacle that the claimed combination overcomes. It does not explain, for example, how a browser extension conventionally determines “otherwise empty space” or how the claimed approach differs from prior art browser extensions that insert interface elements into web pages. Without such technical specificity, the opinion that the combination is unconventional is a conclusory assertion that lacks evidentiary support.
Applicant’s arguments concerning 35 U.S.C. 101 have been considered but are not persuasive. The claimed invention is directed to the abstract idea of extending a financing offer to a user. This idea includes determining a preauthorized loan amount presenting a financing offer generating a virtual card and using that virtual card to complete a checkout transaction. This is a fundamental economic practice rather than a technological improvement. The Federal Circuit has repeatedly held that similar financial transaction concepts are abstract. For example, in Credit Acceptance Corporation v. Westlake Services 859 F.3d 1044 (Fed. Cir. 2017) claims directed to processing an application for financing a purchase were held abstract. In buySAFE Incorporated v. Google Incorporated 765 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014) claims directed to creating a transaction performance guaranty were held abstract.
Applicant's reliance on cases such as Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corporation 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and McRO Incorporated v. Bandai Namco Games America Incorporated 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016) is misplaced. In Enfish the claims were directed to a specific improvement in computer functionality namely a self-referential table for a computer database. 822 F.3d at 1336. In McRO the claims were directed to a specific improvement in three dimensional animation technology namely automated lip synchronization using a particular set of rules. 837 F.3d at 1314 to 1315. Here the claims are not directed to any technological improvement in the functioning of a computer or browser extension. Instead, the claims merely apply computer based tools to perform the abstract economic practice of offering financing and facilitating a purchase.
Applicant argues that the claims do more than merely apply the abstract idea and that the combination of operations defines a unique combination of tool and information gathering and display protocol. SMED paragraphs 7 and 11. However the additional elements including monitoring browser activity determining a merchant identity displaying an interface element generating a virtual card detecting a checkout page and populating payment fields are merely data gathering steps display steps and data transfer steps. These steps are routinely performed by computer software and browser extensions. The claim does not describe how these steps are implemented in a manner that improves the underlying technology. The Federal Circuit has consistently held that merely adding computer implements or routine data manipulation steps to an abstract idea does not render the claim non abstract. In Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL Incorporated 896 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2018) the court held that claims directed to providing an unobtrusive display of content that does not interfere with the user's interaction were abstract. The superimposed icon and the second interface element in Applicant's claims are analogous. They provide an extra piece of information namely the financing offer without disrupting the existing payment icons. This is precisely the kind of unobtrusive display that the Federal Circuit found abstract. Furthermore the Federal Circuit has held that claims directed to enabling interactivity with remote objects on a client computer browser using distributed computing were abstract. Eolas Technologies Incorporated v. Amazon.com Incorporated No. 2022 1932 slip op. at 8 to 9 (Fed. Cir. 2024). The claimed browser extension functionality here is similarly directed to enabling a financing offer to be presented and used at checkout. That is a result which is not tied to any specific non abstract implementation.
Applicant contends that placing the icon in otherwise empty space and formatting it consistently with existing payment icons integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims do not explain how the browser extension selects the location or determines what constitutes empty space. The specification similarly lacks technical detail. The specification states only that the interface element may be provided in a clear or otherwise empty space to avoid interference. Paragraph 69. This is a statement of a desired outcome not a technological solution. The additional elements recited in the claims include monitoring browser activity determining a merchant identity referencing a table of loan amounts displaying a message or selectable link generating a virtual card detecting a checkout page and modifying the checkout page to transfer payment details. These are data gathering operations display operations and data transfer operations. Browser extensions perform these operations as a matter of ordinary design. The claims do not describe any specific implementation or technical approach for accomplishing these tasks beyond their mere recitation. The Federal Circuit has held that claims directed to underwriting and lacking an inventive concept are not patent eligible. Caselas LLC v. VeriFone Incorporated No. 2022 2089 slip op. at 6 to 7 (Fed. Cir. May 29 2024). The court rejected the patent owner's argument that an unconventional data flow supplied an inventive concept. The court found that the claims remained directed to the abstract idea of underwriting. Here the claimed data gathering and display operations do not supply an inventive concept sufficient to render the claims patent eligible.
Applicant argues that the information gathering and display paradigm is defined with specificity and operates in ways that are not conventional. SMED paragraph 12. However, the claims do not identify any improvement to the functioning of a browser extension or a computer. The claimed operations such as monitoring browser activity analyzing a webpage inserting interface elements detecting a checkout page and populating fields are tasks that browser extensions routinely perform. The specification itself acknowledges that browser extensions can add to or replace website content and have access to browsing history or current or active searches. Paragraph 29. The claimed invention merely applies these existing capabilities to the abstract idea of offering financing. The Federal Circuit has emphasized that to establish a technological improvement a claim must be directed to a specific improvement in the way computers operate. Enfish 822 F.3d at 1336. Applicant's claims are not directed to any improvement in browser extension technology. The claims are directed to the abstract economic practice of offering financing implemented using the existing capabilities of browser extensions.
Claim Interpretation
Non-Functional Descriptive Material
Claims 5 and 15 recites:
“wherein displaying the interface element comprises displaying a message indicating a proposed installment loan payment amount corresponding to a cost of the product or service…”
Claims 6 and 16 recites:
“…wherein displaying the interface element comprises displaying a message indicating a proposed installment loan payment amount corresponding to the preauthorized loan amount…”
According to the MPEP §2111.05 I-III where a claim limitation is directed to conveying a message or meaning to a human reader independent of the intended computer system, an/or the non-transitory computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists. Therefore, as the above limitations are directed to further describing stored data (e.g. conveying meaning to a human reader) and do not create a functional relationship between the data and the memory on which it is stored, the limitations will not differentiate the claims from the prior art. See In re Gulack, 703 F. 2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Lowry, 32 F. 3d 1579, 32 USPQ 2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-8, 10-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In the instant case, claim 1 is directed to extending a financing offer.
Claim 1 recites “a method for employing a … in relation to extending a financing offer to a user, the method comprising:
monitoring … activity of a user via the … responsive to loading a … having one or more … associated with a respective accepted payment source;
determining a merchant identity associated with an … product or service based on the … activity;
determining a preauthorized loan amount for the financing offer to the user based on the merchant identity; and
displaying an … associated with the financing offer on the … by …associated with a … card associated with a user account of the user onto a selected location on the …, the … to have a format consistent in terms of size and shape with formats of the one or more … and the selected location being proximate to and not interfering with locations of the one or more … due to being in otherwise empty space;
generating a … associated with a user account of the user responsive to the user selecting the …;
detecting that the … is a …; and
modifying the … to display a … to transfer details of the … into corresponding fields of a … of the … responsive to selection of the …”.
These limitations describe an abstract idea of extending a financing offer and corresponds to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (commercial interactions or sales activities or behaviors, business relations, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people). Accordingly, claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A: Prong 1: YES).
The claim also recites as additional elements such as “monitoring browser activity of a user via the browser extension responsive to loading a webpage having one or more icons”, “interface element”, “superimposing an icon associated with a virtual card”, “generating a virtual card …”,”online”, “modifying the checkout page to display a second interface element to transfer details of the virtual card into corresponding fields of a payment interface console of the checkout page responsive to selection of the second interface element” which do no more than implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment. Therefore, claim 1 recites an abstract idea without a practical application (Step 2A - Prong 2: NO).
Further, as the additional elements of claim 1 do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field. Thus, claim 1 is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
Claim 11 also recites the abstract idea of extending a financing offer and corresponds to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (commercial interactions or sales activities or behaviors, business relations, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people) step one of step 2A (MPEP 2106.04). Claim 11 includes the additional elements of “an apparatus comprising processing circuitry configured to”, as “monitoring browser activity of a user via the browser extension responsive to loading a webpage”, “interface element”, “online”, “generating a virtual card …”, “modifying the checkout page to display a second interface element to transfer details of the virtual card into corresponding fields of a payment interface console of the checkout page responsive to selection of the second interface element”. The additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment. There is no improvement to the functioning of a computer, or lo any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a}.
Claim 2 recites “wherein the … activity comprises a search activity, wherein determining the merchant identity comprises determining a corresponding merchant identity for each respective search result generated responsive to conducting the search activity, and wherein displaying the … comprises displaying the … proximate to at least one search result”. The claim includes “browser” and “interface” as additional elements. However, the additional elements do no more than link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The additional element does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment. There is no improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a).
Claim 3 recites “wherein determining the preauthorized loan amount comprises referencing a table of merchant identities and corresponding loan amounts assigned to each of the merchant identities” which further describe the abstract idea.
Claim 4 recites “wherein displaying the … comprises displaying a message indicating the preauthorized loan amount of the financing offer via the …”. The claim includes “interface element” and “browser extension” as additional elements. However, the additional elements do no more than link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment. There is no improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a).
Claim 5 recites “wherein displaying the interface element comprises displaying a message indicating a proposed installment loan payment amount corresponding to a cost of the product or service”. The claim includes “interface element” and “browser extension” as additional elements. However, the additional elements do no more than link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment. There is no improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a).
Claim 6 recites “wherein displaying the interface element comprises displaying a message indicating a proposed installment loan payment amount corresponding to the preauthorized loan amount”. The claim includes “interface element” and “browser extension” as additional elements. However, the additional elements do no more than link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment. There is no improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a).
Claim 7 recites “wherein … to enable the user to accept the financing offer and setup or link the financing offer to the user account”. The claim includes “displaying the interface element comprises displaying a selectable link” as an additional element. However, the additional element does no more than link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The additional element does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment. There is no improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a).
Claim 8 recites “wherein, when the … is used for payment at checkout to purchase the product or service, the amount of the payment is established as an installment loan associated with the user account according to terms of the financing offer”. The claim includes “virtual card” as an additional element. However, the additional element does no more than link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The additional element does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment. There is no improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a).
Claim 12 recites “wherein the … activity comprises a search activity, wherein determining the merchant identity comprises determining a corresponding merchant identity for each respective search result generated responsive to conducting the search activity, and wherein displaying the … comprises displaying the … proximate to at least one search result”. The claim includes “browser” and “interface” as additional elements. However, the additional elements do no more than link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The additional element does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment. There is no improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a).
Claim 13 recites “wherein determining the preauthorized loan amount comprises referencing a table of merchant identities and corresponding loan amounts assigned to each of the merchant identities” which further describe the abstract idea.
Claim 14 recites “wherein displaying the … comprises displaying a message indicating the preauthorized loan amount of the financing offer via the …”. The claim includes “interface element” and “browser extension” as additional elements. However, the additional elements do no more than link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The additional element does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment. There is no improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a).
Claim 15 recites “wherein displaying the … comprises displaying a message indicating a proposed installment loan payment amount corresponding to a cost of the product or service”. The claim includes “interface element” as an additional element. However, the additional element does no more than link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment. There is no improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a).
Claim 16 recites “wherein displaying the … comprises displaying a message indicating a proposed installment loan payment amount corresponding to the preauthorized loan amount”. The claim includes “interface element” as an additional element. However, the additional element does no more than link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment. There is no improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a).
Claim 17 recites “wherein … to enable the user to accept the financing offer and setup or link the financing offer to the user account”. The claim includes “displaying the interface element comprises displaying a selectable link” as an additional element. However, the additional element does no more than link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The additional element does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment. There is no improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a).
Claim 18 recites “wherein, when the … is used for payment at checkout to purchase the product or service, the amount of the payment is established as an installment loan associated with the user account according to terms of the financing offer”. The claim includes “virtual card” as an additional element. However, the additional element does no more than link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The additional element does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment. There is no improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3-4, 11, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rodriguez et al. [US Pub No. 2021/0390551 A1] in view of Wu et al. [US Pub No. 10,296,897 B1].
Regarding claim 1, Rodriguez discloses a method for employing a browser extension in relation to extending a financing offer to a user, the method comprising:
monitoring browser activity of a user via the browser extension responsive to loading a
web page having one or more icons associated with a respective accepted payment source (Abstract, 0006-0008, 0032-0033, 0038). While Rodriguez does not explicitly recite “icons associated with a respective accepted payment source,” the presence of payment method icons on checkout pages was well-known in the art, as evidenced by Wu, which teaches in claim 1 “payment webpage” that typically includes “payment card entry portion” where payment method icons appear. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to combine the monitoring extension of Rodriguez with the known environment of payment webpages having such icons. It was well-known in the art at the time of the invention that merchant checkout pages commonly display visual icons representing accepted payment methods such as Visa, Mastercard, PayPal logos. These icons serve a fundamental user interface function as they visually communicate to users which payment options are available before they enter payment information. This was a routine and conventional feature of e-commerce websites, not a novel aspect of the claimed invention.
Rodriguez discloses determining a merchant identity associated with an online product or service based on the browser activity (Abstract).
Rodriguez discloses determining a preauthorized loan amount for the financing offer to the user based on the merchant identity (0025).
Rodriguez discloses displaying an interface element associated with the financing offer on the web page by superimposing an icon associated with a virtual card associated with a user account of the user onto a selected location on the web page, the icon being generated by the browser extension to have a format consistent in terms of size and shape with formats of the one or more icons and the selected location being proximate to and not interfering with locations of the one or more icons due to being in otherwise empty space (FIG. 12 depicts an example of a user interface where the browser extension includes a selectable button near the card input field for the user to generate a ghost card number (“generate number” button).” Which is the same size and shape of the proximate fields).
Rodriguez does not disclose however Wu teaches generating the virtual card responsive to the user selecting the interface element (Abstract, Col. 2 lines 42-50).
Rodriguez discloses detecting that the web page is a checkout page (Abstract, 0006-0008, 0032-0033, 0038).
Rodriguez does not disclose however Wu teaches modifying the checkout page to display a second interface element to transfer details of the virtual card into corresponding fields of a payment interface console of the checkout page
responsive to selection of the second interface element (Claim 1 and see figure 13).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Rodriguez to include the teachings of Wu. The rationale to combine the teachings is both references operate within the same environment of a browser extension that interacts with merchant web pages during the checkout process and the combination would create an improve system for financing transactions at checkout. Claim 11 recites an apparatus comprising processing circuitry configured to perform steps that are substantively identical to the method steps of claim 1. Because the prior art combination renders the corresponding method steps of claim 1 obvious, the apparatus claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Rodriguez in view of Wu disclose wherein determining the preauthorized loan amount comprises referencing a table of merchant identities and corresponding loan amounts assigned to each of the merchant identities (0026, 0036).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Rodriguez in view of Wu disclose wherein displaying the interface element comprises displaying a message indicating the preauthorized loan amount of the financing offer via the browser extension (Abstract).
With respect to claims 7 and 17, Rodriquez in view of Wu teaches wherein displaying the interface element comprises displaying a selectable link to enable the user to accept the financing offer and setup or link the financing offer to the user account (Wu Figure 13). Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Rodriguez to include the teachings of Wu. The rationale to combine the teachings is both references operate within the same environment of a browser extension that interacts with merchant web pages during the checkout process and the combination would create an improve system for financing transactions at checkout.
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rodriguez et al. [US Pub No. 2021/0390551 A1] in view of Wu et al. [US Pub No. 10,296,897 B1] and further in view of Paxson et al. [WO 2011150340A2].
With respect to claims 2 and 12, Rodriquez in view of Wu does not disclose however Quadpay teaches wherein the browser activity comprises a search activity,
wherein determining the merchant identity comprises determining a corresponding
merchant identity for each respective search result generated responsive to conducting the search activity, and wherein displaying the interface element comprises displaying the interface element proximate to at least one search result (Abstract, 0009, 0011-0012, 0014, 0019-0020). Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Rodriguez to include the teachings of Wu and Paxson. The rationale to combine the teachings is that the technologies are complementary components of a unified system and could be combined to create an improved solution for financing online purchases.
Claims 5-6, 8, 15-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rodriguez et al. [US Pub No. 2021/0390551 A1] in view of Wu et al. [US Pub No. 10,296,897 B1] and further in view of Quadpay Reimagines 'Buy Now, Pay Later' Shopping Experience with Quadpay for Chrome, Business Wire.
With respect to claims 5 and 15, Rodriquez in view of Wu does not disclose however Quadpay teaches wherein displaying the interface element comprises
displaying a message indicating a proposed installment loan payment amount corresponding to a cost of the product or service. Quadpay explicitly teaches a browser extension that “displays a ‘Pay with Quadpay’ button” and allows a user to “pay in four interest-free installments over six weeks”. Quadpay states that “Chrome users can add the Quadpay for Chrome extension … Consumers can shop as normal, knowing they will only have to pay ¼ of their purchase today”. The exact contents of the message are non-functional descriptive material, and as the claim cannot differentiate itself from the prior art by non-functional descriptive material, the “pay with quadpay” meets this claim limitation. Before the effective filing date of the invention, one of ordinary skill would have recognized that modifying the disclosure of Rodriquez and Wu to include the teachings of Quadpay is a straightforward integration of known components to achieve a predictable result of enabling a user to qualify for a merchant-specific financing offer.
With respect to claims 6 and 16, Rodriquez in view of Wu does not disclose however Quadpay teaches wherein displaying the interface element comprises
displaying a message indicating a proposed installment loan payment amount corresponding to the preauthorized loan amount. Quadpay explicitly teaches a browser extension that “displays a ‘Pay with Quadpay’ button” and allows a user to “pay in four interest-free installments over six weeks”. Quadpay states that “Chrome users can add the Quadpay for Chrome extension … Consumers can shop as normal, knowing they will only have to pay ¼ of their purchase today”. The exact contents of the message are non-functional descriptive material, and as the claim cannot differentiate itself from the prior art by non-functional descriptive material, the “pay with quadpay” meets this claim limitation. Before the effective filing date of the invention, one of ordinary skill would have recognized that modifying the disclosure of Rodriquez and Wu to include the teachings of Quadpay is a straightforward integration of known components to achieve a predictable result of enabling a user to qualify for a merchant-specific financing offer.
With respect to claims 8 and 18, Rodriquez in view of Wu teach wherein, when the virtual card is used for payment at checkout to purchase the product or service (Wu, Abstract, claim 1). Rodriquez in view of Wu does not disclose however Quadpay teaches the amount of the payment is established as an installment loan associated with the user account according to terms of the financing offer. Quadpay will generate a virtual Visa card and automatically insert it into the credit card form. The merchant is paid upfront and you pay in four installments over six weeks”. Thus, when the virtual card is used at checkout, the payment amount is established as an installment loan with defined terms (four equal payments over six weeks).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN T POE whose telephone number is (571)272-9789. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:30 am through 6pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ryan Donlon can be reached on 571-270-3602. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/K.T.P/Examiner, Art Unit 3692 /KEVIN T POE/
/RYAN D DONLON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3692 August 7, 2026
Prosecution Insights