DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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 September 17, 2025. The rejections are stated below. Claims 1-8 and 11-18 are pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
2. Applicant’s arguments concerning 35 U.S.C. 101 have been considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues the claims are directed to "technical tools for creating the means for interaction." However, the Supreme Court in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l instructs that the "directed to" analysis looks to the claim's character as a whole. The core of claim 1 is a series of steps for orchestrating a financial transaction: determining a merchant identity, calculating a loan amount, presenting a financing offer, creating a payment instrument, and automating its entry at checkout. These are fundamental economic practices of loan processing and payment facilitation. The use of a browser extension to execute these steps does not alter this fundamental character. The claim recites the automation of a business process, not a specific improvement in computer capabilities. The claim describes a desired outcome of visual integration but does not specify any particular algorithm or technique for achieving this outcome that differs from the normal operation of a browser extension. Browser extensions, by their nature, can manipulate the Document Object Model (DOM) to insert, style, and position elements on a webpage. The recited steps of superimposing an icon and selecting a location are functions inherent to this technology. The individual claim limitations: monitoring browser activity, determining a merchant identity from that activity, calculating a loan amount, generating a virtual card, and auto-filling a form are functions that exist in the art. Monitoring browser activity to determine context is performed by content personalization and advertising systems. Determining a loan amount based on merchant and user data is a function of underwriting systems. Generating virtual cards and auto-filling forms are established features of financial services and browser software, respectively. The combination of these elements in claims 1 and 11 arranges them to perform the abstract idea of loan offer and payment processing.
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.
3. 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.
4. 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 with formats of the one or more … and the selected location being proximate to and not interfering with locations of the one or more …;
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).
5. 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).
6. 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).
7. 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}.
8. 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).
9. 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.
10. 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).
11. 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).
12. 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).
13. 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).
14. 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).
15. 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).
16. 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.
17. 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).
18. 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).
19. 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).
20. 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).
21. 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).
22. Claim 20 recites “detecting a … corresponding to an accepted payment source, wherein displaying the … comprises … defining an additional accepted payment source and …”. The claim includes “first object on the checkout page” and “displaying the interface element comprises generating a second object … superimposing the second object proximate the first object” 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 Rejections – 35 USC §112
23. 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.
24. Claims 1-8 and 11-18 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.
25. Claims 1 and 11 each recite "superimposing an icon... to have a format consistent 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”. The terms "consistent with formats" and "proximate to and not interfering with" are highly subjective and lack an objective boundary. They do not provide a person of ordinary skill in the art with reasonable certainty about the scope of the invention. The phrases "consistent with formats" and "proximate to and not interfering with" are subjective and lack an objective boundary. The specification provides no standard for determining what visual characteristics constitute a "consistent" format or what spatial relationship qualifies as "proximate" and "non-interfering." As such, the scope of the claim is unclear, as it would depend on the subjective opinion of the viewer rather than objective criteria. See MPEP § 2173.02 and § 2173.05(b).
26. Claims 2-8 and 12-18 are rejected as each depends on claims 1 and 11 respectively.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KEVIN T POE whose telephone number is (571)272-9789. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:30am 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, Calvin Hewitt can be reached on 571-272-6709. 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/
/DANIEL S FELTEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692
Prosecution Insights