DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This action is in reply to the response and/or arguments filed for Application 17/714,597 filed on 23 September 2025.
Claims 1 and 2 have been amended.
Claims 1-9 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
A. Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 101:
1. Applicant argues that the claims as amended do not recite a method of organizing human behavior because the claims as a whole reflect an improvement in the field of remoting system integration.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In the instant case, system claim 1 is directed towards facilitating a financing agreement (e.g., lease-purchase-payment scheme) between entities associated with an economic/commercial-related activity in a remote manner. Claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea of facilitating a commercial and/or economic-related practice (e.g., legal contract, financing transaction) while using rules and/or instructions to carry out steps merely comprising insignificant extra-solution activity including receiving (“retail information”), identifying (“an e-commerce website”), compiling (“generate a whitelist of items”), evaluating (“suitability of said items), comparing, verifying (“item price falls within a tolerance band”, “item identifier”), transmitting (“terms of agreement”, “authorization criteria”), inputting (“execution of agreement”), transferring (“payment”), adjusting (“removing item from agreement”) data/information associated with a financial/commercial transaction, which is grouped under the certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles, practices or concepts; sales activity; following set of instructions; commercial or legal interactions (marketing; sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior of relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teachings, following rules or instructions) grouping, in prong one of step 2A (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance).
Other than the mere nominal recitation of a computer-related device – nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from the organizing human interactions grouping. Accordingly, for these reasons, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 1 recites: “… receive retailer information concerning said item including a description and a price of said item; identify an e-commerce website operated by the determined retailer: generate a whitelist of items suitable for inclusion in the lease-to-own arrangement comprising virtual information concerning said item including a virtual description and a virtual price of said item,; evaluate suitability of said item for inclusion in a lease-to-own arrangement, including: comparing said retailer information of said item … to the whitelist; and determining whether the price of said item … falls within a tolerance band associated with the virtual information; based on said evaluation of suitability for inclusion in said lease-to-own arrangement, creating terms of an agreement forming said lease-to-own-arrangement between said consumer and said lease-to-own company; communicating said terms of said agreement …; receive an acceptance of said terms from said consumer …; construct said agreement in response to receiving said acceptance …; transmit said agreement …; receive an execution of said agreement by said consumer …; transmit authorization criteria to an issuer processor based on the executed agreement, wherein the issuer processor is configured to: add said authorization criteria to an authorization whitelist; in response to said consumer initiating payment for said item at said retailer via a payment card stored on a secure element …, receive an authorization request; compare said authorization request to said authorization whitelist; based on said comparison, authorize said payment for said item at said retailer via said payment card; in response to the payment being authorized; determine that the set of strings include an identifier for said item; and when the set of strings does not include the identifier for said item, remove said item from said agreement”. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance). Hence, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance), the additional elements of the claim such as “determine said retailer based on geocoordinates of a mobile computing device accessible by said consumer using a global positioning system (GPS) receiver”; “crawling the e-commerce website of the retailer”; “parse a file comprising a receipt of said payment to collect a set of strings identifying purchased items”, including the computer-related devices comprising “remote computing device”, “first processing unit”, “first memory unit”, “mobile computing device (mobile device)”, “global positioning system (GPS) receiver”, represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to (i.e. automate) implement the acts of facilitating a commercial and/or economic-related practice (e.g., legal contract, financing transaction) while using rules and/or instructions to carry out steps merely comprising insignificant extra-solution activity including receiving (“retail information”), identifying (“an e-commerce website”), compiling (“generate a whitelist of items”), evaluating (“suitability of said items), comparing, verifying (“item price falls within a tolerance band”, “item identifier”), transmitting (“terms of agreement”, “authorization criteria”), inputting (“execution of agreement”), transferring (“payment”), adjusting (“removing item from agreement”) data/information associated with a financial/commercial transaction but for the application of computer-related devices and/or technology. Applicant’s argument is therefore unpersuasive.
2. Applicant argues that, like in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014), the claims: (1) solve a problem with a technological solution specific to the technological environment of the Internet; and, (2) is necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The rejected claims do not adhere to the same fact pattern seen in the DOR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com decision. In the DOR Holdings decision, the manner in which the network itself operated was changed to improve network operations. There is no actual improvement made to the operations or physical structure of the additional elements claimed in the instant application.
Moreover, unlike the situation in DDR Holdings, Applicant does not identify any problem particular to computer networks and/or the Internet that the claim allegedly overcomes. Instead, it is determined that, based on the current record, the claim uses a computer that performs in a manner with which it was designed to perform and/or function, i.e., accessing memory, receiving and storing data, processing to transform some data, and outputting data.
In the instant application, there is no actual improvement made to the operations or physical structure of the additional elements claimed. There are no actual improvements to another technology or technical field, no improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, and there are no meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment evident in the claims. The claims do not improve technology inasmuch as the underlying technology remains unaffected. Applicant is merely using existing technology for its intended purpose to implement the business solution. Any improvements lie in the abstract idea itself and not in the underlying technology. Applicant’s argument is therefore unpersuasive.
3. Applicant argues that, similar to DDR Holdings, the claims solve a problem of data coherence with a technological solution unique to that environment by going out to a different data source for information – e.g., using a geolocation of the customer's device to identify the physical retailer that the customer is located at, identifying and crawling the physical retailer's e-commerce site, and parsing a receipt to determine if the item was actually purchased.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims do not solve a problem of data coherence with a technological solution unique to the environment as argued by Applicant inasmuch as the steps/activities recited for resorting to different data sources for information comprising “using a geolocation of the customer's device to identify the physical retailer that the customer is located at”, “identifying and crawling the physical retailer's e-commerce site”, and “parsing a receipt to determine if the item was actually purchased”, are conducted in a separate and independent manner by the lease-to-own company that is not necessarily integrated within a single device or application, while utilizing existing technology – e.g., Global Positioning System (GPS) receiver, web crawling, parsing process for extracting data elements from an image file, that is not improved or transformed into a patent-eligible application of an abstract idea but merely functions as the technology and/or related computer-related devices is/are designed and understood to perform. Applicant’s argument is therefore unpersuasive.
The rejection is therefore maintained.
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.
Claim 1-9 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, system claim 1 is directed towards facilitating a financing agreement (e.g., lease-purchase-payment scheme) between entities associated with an economic/commercial-related activity in a remote manner. Claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea of facilitating a commercial and/or economic-related practice (e.g., legal contract, financing transaction) while using rules and/or instructions to carry out steps merely comprising insignificant extra-solution activity including receiving (“retail information”), identifying (“an e-commerce website”), compiling (“generate a whitelist of items”), evaluating (“suitability of said items), comparing, verifying (“item price falls within a tolerance band”, “item identifier”), transmitting (“terms of agreement”, “authorization criteria”), inputting (“execution of agreement”), transferring (“payment”), adjusting (“removing item from agreement”) data/information associated with a financial/commercial transaction, which is grouped under the certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles, practices or concepts; sales activity; following set of instructions; commercial or legal interactions (marketing; sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior of relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teachings, following rules or instructions) grouping, in prong one of step 2A (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance).
Other than the mere nominal recitation of a computer-related device – nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from the organizing human interactions grouping. Accordingly, for these reasons, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 1 recites: “… receive retailer information concerning said item including a description and a price of said item;
identify an e-commerce website operated by the determined retailer:
generate a whitelist of items suitable for inclusion in the lease-to-own arrangement comprising virtual information concerning said item including a virtual description and a virtual price of said item,;
evaluate suitability of said item for inclusion in a lease-to-own arrangement, including:
comparing said retailer information of said item … to the whitelist; and
determining whether the price of said item … falls within a tolerance band associated with the virtual information;
based on said evaluation of suitability for inclusion in said lease-to-own arrangement, creating terms of an agreement forming said lease-to-own-arrangement between said consumer and said lease-to-own company;
communicating said terms of said agreement …;
receive an acceptance of said terms from said consumer …;
construct said agreement in response to receiving said acceptance …;
transmit said agreement …;
receive an execution of said agreement by said consumer …;
transmit authorization criteria to an issuer processor based on the executed agreement, wherein the issuer processor is configured to:
add said authorization criteria to an authorization whitelist;
in response to said consumer initiating payment for said item at said retailer via a payment card stored on a secure element …, receive an authorization request;
compare said authorization request to said authorization whitelist;
based on said comparison, authorize said payment for said item at said retailer via said payment card;
in response to the payment being authorized;
determine that the set of strings include an identifier for said item; and
when the set of strings does not include the identifier for said item, remove said item from said agreement”.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance). Hence, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance), the additional elements of the claim such as “determine said retailer based on geocoordinates of a mobile computing device accessible by said consumer using a global positioning system (GPS) receiver”; “crawling the e-commerce website of the retailer”; “parse a file comprising a receipt of said payment to collect a set of strings identifying purchased items”, including the computer-related devices comprising “remote computing device”, “first processing unit”, “first memory unit”, “mobile computing device (mobile device)”, “global positioning system (GPS) receiver”, represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to (i.e. automate) implement the acts of facilitating a commercial and/or economic-related practice (e.g., legal contract, financing transaction) while using rules and/or instructions to carry out steps merely comprising insignificant extra-solution activity including receiving (“retail information”), identifying (“an e-commerce website”), compiling (“generate a whitelist of items”), evaluating (“suitability of said items), comparing, verifying (“item price falls within a tolerance band”, “item identifier”), transmitting (“terms of agreement”, “authorization criteria”), inputting (“execution of agreement”), transferring (“payment”), adjusting (“removing item from agreement”) data/information associated with a financial/commercial transaction but for the application of computer-related devices and/or technology.
When analyzed under step 2B (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claim merely describe the concept of facilitating a commercial and/or economic-related practice (e.g., legal contract, financing transaction) while using rules and/or instructions to carry out steps merely comprising insignificant extra-solution activity including receiving (“retail information”), identifying (“an e-commerce website”), compiling (“generate a whitelist of items”), evaluating (“suitability of said items), comparing, verifying (“item price falls within a tolerance band”, “item identifier”), transmitting (“terms of agreement”, “authorization criteria”), inputting (“execution of agreement”), transferring (“payment”), adjusting (“removing item from agreement”) data/information associated with a financial/commercial transaction but for the application of computer-related devices and/or technology, using computer technology. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ a computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea, which cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)).
Dependent claims 2-9 add further details and contain limitations that narrow the scope of the invention. However, these details do not result in significantly more than the abstract idea itself. As explained in the December 16, 2014 Interim Eligibility Guidance from the USPTO (in reference to the BuySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc. decision), further narrowing the details of an abstract idea does not change the § 101 analysis since a more narrow abstract idea does not make it any less abstract.
The step(s) recited are a further refinement of methods of organizing human activity – – fundamental economic principles, practices or concepts; sales activity; following set of instructions; commercial or legal interactions (agreements in the form of contracts; business relations); managing interactions between people (including social activities, teachings, following rules or instructions), because it merely describes intermediate steps and/or rules/instructions of the process.
Viewed individually and in combination, these additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstraction itself.
Accordingly, the present pending claim is not patent eligible and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art(s) made of record and not relied upon is/are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kenny et al. (US 2005/0149408 A1) discloses a system for providing integrated financing services. An integrated financing services system provides a leasing service for vendors accessible through the Internet, embedding financing into the checkout process using several Web services. The present system is accessed by a vendor to provide leasing prices on a line item by line item basis within an electronic shopping catalog. Depending on the detail provided by the sales company in the request for those rates, these lease prices can map to the specificity of the catalog. If the sales company has a catalog designed for a specific customer or industry, the lease prices provided can be tailored to those specifications as well. The present system provides a service for the vendors to integrate leasing into their sales agents' and customers' shopping experience without a large investment in a flexible, and customer customizable way. The lessor can now support vendors and customers in a very repeatable manner, using the same technology with no new special development for each vendor.
Mahnken et al. (US 2004/0030640 A1) discloses a system and method for online leasing. The present invention provides an online leasing system. The system allows a consumer to view availability listings
for currently vacant units and those units that have been forecast as vacant. The system accepts consumer demographic data and performs a pre-lease screening process to determine the suitability of the consumer. Suitable consumers are allowed to enter into a leasing agreement while online or reserve the unit for future leasing. Payment of the required deposit and any other monies due are processed as electronic payments. Ancillary electronic commerce services can also be integrated into the system for the convenience of the consumer.
Claims 1-9 are rejected.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Clifford Madamba whose telephone number is 571-270-1239. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thu 7:30-5:00 EST Alternate Fridays.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ryan Donlon, can be reached at 571-272-3602. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CLIFFORD B MADAMBA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692
Prosecution Insights