DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
The following is Office Action on the merits in response to the communication
received on 1/26/26.
Claim status:
Amended claims: 2, 9, 16, 22
Canceled claims: 1, 4, 11
Added New claims: None
Pending claims: 2, 3, 5-10, 12-22
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.
Claims 2, 3, 5-10, 12-22 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. Specifically claims 2 (limitation (j)), 9 (limitation (h)), 16 (limitation (e)) and 22 (limitation (i)) recite “reduce a virtual cart amount on said e-commerce portal, where a purchase tool is unaffordable, until said amount is affordable by loan terms”. Page 15 of the specification discusses determining whether or not “a purchase tool is unaffordable”. This discussion offers no more than the conclusion of determining whether or not an item in a cart is “affordable”. There is no discussion in the specification of any algorithm for making a determination of whether something is “affordable” or for “reducing a virtual cart amount … until said amount is affordable by loan terms” per the claim language. Therefore, it has not been demonstrated that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 3 and 5-8 depend from claim 2, claims 10, 12-15 depend from claim 9, and claims 17-21 depend from claim 16 and are rejected for these reasons.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2, 3, 5-10, 12-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The terms “unaffordable” and “affordable” in independent claims 2 (limitation (j)), 9 (limitation (h)), 16 (limitation (e)) and 22 (limitation (i)) are relative terms which render the claims indefinite. The terms “unaffordable” and “affordable” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Therefore the claim is indefinite. Claims 3 and 5-8 depend from claim 2, claims 10, 12-15 depend from claim 9, and claims 17-21 depend from claim 16 and are rejected for these reasons.
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 2, 3, 5-10, 12-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention because the claimed invention is not directed to statutory subject matter. Specifically, the invention of claims 2, 3, 5-10, 12-22 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claims 2, 9, 16 and 22 are directed to a system (claims 2 and 16), a method (claims 9 and 22). Therefore on its face, each of claims 2, 9, 16 and 22 is directed to a statutory category of invention under Step 1 of the 2019 PEG. However each of claims 2, 9, 16 and 22 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, under Step 2A (Prong One and Prong Two) and Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, which is a judicial exception to 35 U.S.C. 101, as detailed below. Using the language of independent claim 2 to illustrate the claim recites the limitations of, (i) processing business to business lending opportunities, (ii) providing merchants with an ability to access customer data for extending credit to at least one customer desiring credit, (iii) processing network and financial data; (iv) to activate a customer viewing display, (v) confirm data stored pertaining to said customer, (vi) receives a confirmation code to activate access to said e-commerce payment portal via their mobile telephone number, (vii) encoding said lightweight module to be specifically capable of storing computer- executable instructions, (viii) store said customer data in provided via an operating system accessible to a merchant and remotely coupled to an information processing system accessible to a third-party banking engine, and said at least one customer desiring credit; (ix) retrieve enterprise resource planning data of said customer; (x) process, via said information processing system, said enterprise resource planning data and present a payment portal module to said at least one customer desiring credit; (xi) determine a creditworthiness rating and its associated underwriting of said at least one customer desiring credit using said enterprise resource planning data accessed; and wherein said enterprise resource planning data comprises gathered customer data including personally identifiable information, and business and organizational data of said at least one customer desiring credit so that said creditworthiness rating may be evaluated to pay at least in part said customer's shopping cart using credit extended by at least one third-party banking engine on behalf of said at least one customer desiring credit for a benefit of said merchant, and establish said at least one customer desiring credit meets four parameters established by an enterprise resource planning underwriting model, and wherein said four parameters are said customer's age, location, a maximum cart amount and minimum cart amount determined by a gross annual revenue of said business of said at least one customer desiring credit, and; whereby if said four parameters are met loan origination factors such as Iovation approval, LexisNexis BVI and AR2B, further review including BPR Fraud Alerts, OFAC Alerts, and Frozen Files, Hard Cuts such as bankruptcies, number of total trades, and minimum revolving balance and Equifax BPR are all considered for application acceptance as embedded within the present system, and; whereby the applicant is prompted with loan information for different rate and maximum line of credit options from FICO data which is passed to a software as a service banking engine, and; (xii) present said e-commerce payment portal via a user interface to: (a) pay with said credit extended by said third-party banking engine, wherein selection of a payment option transmits, via said user interface, an underwriting model containing a series of data fields related to said creditworthiness rating of said at least one customer desiring credit; (b) securely obtain a plurality of customer responses to said series of data fields from said at least one customer desiring credit via said user interface;(c) determine, via said underwriting model said creditworthiness rating of said at least one customer desiring credit; (d) securely redirect said at least one customer desiring credit and said creditworthiness rating from said underwriting model to said at least one third-party banking engine via said user interface to determine said amount of said credit extended; (e) capture, at a merchant point of sale portal, personal information pertaining to said at least one customer desiring credit including said enterprise resource planning data associated with said at least one customer desiring credit; and (f) verify said four parameters independently of said customer responses input by said at least one customer desiring credit using publicly available data resources acquired by cloud software tools; (g) compare, gross annual revenue data entered by said at least one customer desiring credit with known customer information available from publicly available resources; (h) compare, said customer responses with publicly available business information including an amount of time said at least one customer desiring credit has been in business; and, (i) generate and deliver a message for identity verification; (j) reduce a virtual cart amount on said e-commerce portal, where a purchase tool is unaffordable, until said amount is affordable by loan terms;(k) provide, via said second programmable screen, an ability for said at least one customer desiring credit to physically authenticate an agreement with at least one business credit term extended by said at least one third-party banking engine, wherein said second programmable screen is configured to enable said customer to navigate through various screen displays pertaining to loan information; and (1) provide, via said second programmable screen, an ability for said at least one customer desiring credit to click to confirm an amount of credit extended, wherein said amount of credit extended is calculated and redirected from said third-party banking engine, and wherein said at least one customer desiring credit must input a multi-digit code as received by said at least one third-party applicant device prior to confirmation of said amount of credit extended; (m) integrate with cloud software tools with capital and bank partnerships to build an enhanced system of risk screening, loan servicing and regulatory compliance; and (n) deliver payment flexibility via purchase funnel financing; post-decline financing; and addressing issues of cart abandonment and post-decline emails through consumer alerts and reminders under the broadest reasonable interpretation covers methods of organizing human activity: commercial interactions but for the recitation of generic computers. (Independent claims 9 and 16 and 22 recite similar limitations and the analysis is the same).
That is, other than reciting a first merchant processor coupled to a computer system containing a working memory and a first programmable screen, at least one third-party applicant device, an e-commerce payment portal, a non-transitory computer readable and accessible memory unit, a database nothing in the claim precludes the steps from being directed to methods of organizing human activity: commercial interactions. If a claim limitation under its BRI, covers methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, then the limitations fall within the “methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Therefore, claim 2 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One of the Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance 84 Fed.Reg 50 (“2019 PEG”).
This “methods of organizing human activity” is not integrated into a practical application under Step 2A prong Two of the 2019 PEG. In particular claim 2 recites the following additional elements of, a first merchant processor coupled to a computer system containing a working memory and a first programmable screen, at least one third-party applicant device, an e-commerce payment portal, a non-transitory computer readable and accessible memory unit, a database. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional elements – a first merchant processor coupled to a computer system containing a working memory and a first programmable screen, at least one third-party applicant device, an e-commerce payment portal, a non-transitory computer readable and accessible memory unit, a database.
The first merchant processor coupled to a computer system containing a working memory and a first programmable screen, at least one third-party applicant device, e-commerce payment portal, non-transitory computer readable and accessible memory unit, database are recited at a high-level or generality (i.e. as a generic computer performing generic computer functions) such that, they amount to no more than instructions to apply the abstract idea with a general computer (see MPEP 2106.05(h). Accordingly these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B of the 2019 PEG independent claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a first merchant processor coupled to a computer system containing a working memory and a first programmable screen, at least one third-party applicant device, an e-commerce payment portal, a non-transitory computer readable and accessible memory unit, a database, processing business to business lending opportunities, providing merchants with an ability to access customer data for extending credit to at least one customer desiring credit, processing network and financial data; to activate a customer viewing display, confirm data stored pertaining to said customer, receives a confirmation code to activate access to said e-commerce payment portal via their mobile telephone number, encoding said lightweight module to be specifically capable of storing computer- executable instructions, store said customer data in provided via an operating system accessible to a merchant and remotely coupled to an information processing system accessible to a third-party banking engine, and said at least one customer desiring credit; retrieve enterprise resource planning data of said customer; process, via said information processing system, said enterprise resource planning data and present a payment portal module to said at least one customer desiring credit; determine a creditworthiness rating and its associated underwriting of said at least one customer desiring credit using said enterprise resource planning data accessed; and wherein said enterprise resource planning data comprises gathered customer data including personally identifiable information, and business and organizational data of said at least one customer desiring credit so that said creditworthiness rating may be evaluated to pay at least in part said customer's shopping cart using credit extended by at least one third-party banking engine on behalf of said at least one customer desiring credit for a benefit of said merchant, and establish said at least one customer desiring credit meets four parameters established by an enterprise resource planning underwriting model, and wherein said four parameters are said customer's age, location, a maximum cart amount and minimum cart amount determined by a gross annual revenue of said business of said at least one customer desiring credit, and; whereby if said four parameters are met loan origination factors such as Iovation approval, LexisNexis BVI and AR2B, further review including BPR Fraud Alerts, OFAC Alerts, and Frozen Files, Hard Cuts such as bankruptcies, number of total trades, and minimum revolving balance and Equifax BPR are all considered for application acceptance as embedded within the present system, and; whereby the applicant is prompted with loan information for different rate and maximum line of credit options from FICO data which is passed to a software as a service banking engine, and; (xii) present said e-commerce payment portal via a user interface to: (a) pay with said credit extended by said third-party banking engine, wherein selection of a payment option transmits, via said user interface, an underwriting model containing a series of data fields related to said creditworthiness rating of said at least one customer desiring credit; (b) securely obtain a plurality of customer responses to said series of data fields from said at least one customer desiring credit via said user interface;(c) determine, via said underwriting model said creditworthiness rating of said at least one customer desiring credit; (d) securely redirect said at least one customer desiring credit and said creditworthiness rating from said underwriting model to said at least one third-party banking engine via said user interface to determine said amount of said credit extended; (e) capture, at a merchant point of sale portal, personal information pertaining to said at least one customer desiring credit including said enterprise resource planning data associated with said at least one customer desiring credit; and (f) verify said four parameters independently of said customer responses input by said at least one customer desiring credit using publicly available data resources acquired by cloud software tools; (g) compare, gross annual revenue data entered by said at least one customer desiring credit with known customer information available from publicly available resources; (h) compare, said customer responses with publicly available business information including an amount of time said at least one customer desiring credit has been in business; and, (i) generate and deliver a message for identity verification; (j) reduce a virtual cart amount on said e-commerce portal, where a purchase tool is unaffordable, until said amount is affordable by loan terms;(k) provide, via said second programmable screen, an ability for said at least one customer desiring credit to physically authenticate an agreement with at least one business credit term extended by said at least one third-party banking engine, wherein said second programmable screen is configured to enable said customer to navigate through various screen displays pertaining to loan information; and (1) provide, via said second programmable screen, an ability for said at least one customer desiring credit to click to confirm an amount of credit extended, wherein said amount of credit extended is calculated and redirected from said third-party banking engine, and wherein said at least one customer desiring credit must input a multi-digit code as received by said at least one third-party applicant device prior to confirmation of said amount of credit extended; (m) integrate with cloud software tools with capital and bank partnerships to build an enhanced system of risk screening, loan servicing and regulatory compliance; and (n) deliver payment flexibility via purchase funnel financing; post-decline financing; and addressing issues of cart abandonment and post-decline emails through consumer alerts and reminders, amount to instructions to apply the abstract idea with a general computer. The claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims have been given the full two part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The Dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitation(s) fail to establish that the claim(s) are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 3, 5-8, 10, 12-15 and 17-21 merely further explain the abstract idea.
When viewed individually the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly claims 2, 3, 5-10, 12-22 are ineligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/26/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant states the “claims are not directed towards an abstract idea and therefore, are not directed towards a judicial exception which would render them patent-ineligible and non-statutory” (page 16) and the claims “integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception” (page 22). The Examiner disagrees with these sentences because the claims are an improvement of the abstract idea only. They are a business solution to a business problem of “advancing the ability for business transactions to be credit-worthy with additional checks in place to allow for transactions to proceed if essential criteria are met” (page 19). The applicant has not shown how the claims improve a computer or other technology, invoke a particular machine, transform matter, or provide more than a general link between the abstraction and the technology, MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) & (e). The Examiner disagrees that the claims are similar to example 2 (page 19). The claims do not provide an improvement over prior systems and only add details (i.e., a creditworthiness rating to automatically generate approval or denial for a loan) to the abstract idea, they do not address a problem particular to the Internet and merely apply the abstract idea on a general computer. The Examiner disagrees that the claims are similar to example 42 (page 23). The amended claims make the abstract idea more specific, and redirecting users from an e-commerce payment portal to an initial offer screen is not unconventional activity for users navigating a website. Applicant’s remarks about the claimed invention addressing a challenge particular to the internet fail to surface any technical improvement identified in the spec, therefore this is not an inventive concept and significantly more.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARLA HUDSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1063. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 a.m. - 5:30 p.m. ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bennett Sigmond can be reached at (303) 297-4411. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/M.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3694
/BENNETT M SIGMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3694