DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, 17/723,871, was filed on Apr. 19, 2022, and does not claim foreign priority or domestic benefit to any other application. The effective filing date is after the AIA date of March 16, 2013, and so the application 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.
Status of the Application
This Final Office Action is in response to Applicant’s communication of November 19, 2025.
Claims 1-6, 10-16, and 20 are pending, of which claims 1 and 11 are independent.
In the recent amendment, claims 1, 3, 4, 11, 13, and 14 have been amended. Dependent claims 7-9 and 17-19 were previously cancelled.
All pending claims have been examined on the merits.
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.
Claims 1-6, 10-16, and 20 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.
Independent claims 1 and 11 have been amended to recite “an adaptive underwriting algorithm” and “automatically generate an adaptive user interface”, however neither of these expressions appear in the specification or in the originally filed claims.
All dependent claims are also rejected, by virtue of dependence on a rejected independent claim.
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 1-6, 10-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea, without “significantly more”.
The abstract idea elements in independent claim 1 are shown in regular font. The “additional elements” are shown in underlined font:
1. An apparatus for facilitating merchant onboarding to a selective financing and payment platform, the apparatus comprising processing circuitry configured to:
automatically gather information on a plurality of websites of candidate merchants via web crawlers or bots configured to scrape information from accepted web sites and avoid rejected websites;
automatically process the gathered information with an adaptive underwriting algorithm to determine whether one or more of the candidate merchants are eligible to be selected candidates for integration into the selective financing and payment platform; and
responsive to identification of a selected candidate determined to be eligible, provide an onboarding package to a computing device the selected candidate to enable the selected candidate to offer financing terms to customers via the selective financing and payment platform;
wherein the onboarding package comprises an indication of pre-approval of the selected candidate to integrate into the selective financing and payment platform, and an invitation to continue or complete a process to integrate into the selective financing and payment platform, and
wherein the onboarding package further comprises template materials that are executed at the computing device of the selected candidate to automatically generate an adaptive user interface corresponding to previously encountered web architectures,
the adaptive user interface enabling the computing device of the selected candidate to define the offer of financing terms to customers,
including a first portion presenting a branding logo of the selected candidate and a second portion presenting the financing terms determined by the adaptive underwriting algorithm.
More specifically, claims 1-6, 10-16, and 20 recite an abstract idea: “Commercial or Legal Interactions (Including Agreements in the form of Contracts; Legal Obligations; Advertising, Marketing, or Sales Activities or Behaviors; Business Relations)”, as discussed in MPEP §2106(a)(2) Parts (I) and (II), and in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
The “Commercial or Legal Interactions” elements include:
“determine whether one or more of the candidate merchants are eligible to be selected candidates for integration into the selective financing and payment platform”
“financing terms determined by the adaptive underwriting algorithm”.
Moreover, the recitation in claims 1-6, 10-16, and 20 of “an adaptive underwriting algorithm” is an abstract idea within “Mathematical Concepts", specifically “Mathematical Relationships”, “Mathematical Formulas or Equations”, and “Mathematical Calculations”, as discussed in MPEP §2106.04(a)(2) Part (IV), and in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
The “additional” structural elements are: “an apparatus comprising processing circuitry”, “plurality of websites”, “web crawlers or bots”, “selective financing and payment platform”¸ and “a computing device”.
The “additional” extra-solution elements are “automatically gather information on a plurality of websites of candidate merchants”, “provide an onboarding package … wherein the onboarding package comprises an indication of pre-approval of the selected candidate … and an invitation to continue or complete a process”, and “enabling the computing device of the selected candidate to define the offer of financing terms to customers, including a first portion presenting a branding logo of the selected candidate and a second portion presenting the financing terms” (broadly interpreted).
This abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, because:
The claim recites an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements. The generically recited computer elements (“an apparatus comprising processing circuitry”, “plurality of websites”, “web crawlers or bots”, “selective financing and payment platform”¸ and “a computing device”) do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea, because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The claim amounts to adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the abstract idea, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
The extra-solution activities (“gather information on a plurality of websites of candidate merchants”, “provide an onboarding package”, and “enabling the computing device of the selected candidate to define the offer of financing terms to customers including a first portion presenting a branding logo of the selected candidate and a second portion presenting the financing terms”) do not add a meaningful limitation to the method, as they are insignificant extra-solution activity;
The combination of the abstract idea with the additional elements (generically recited computer elements), and/or with the extra-solution activities, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, because:
When considering the elements "alone and in combination" (“an apparatus comprising processing circuitry”, “plurality of websites”, “web crawlers or bots”, “selective financing and payment platform”¸ and “a computing device”), they do not add significantly more (also known as an "inventive concept") to the exception, because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. Instead, they merely add the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the abstract idea, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
In regards to the extra solution activities (“gather information on a plurality of websites of candidate merchants”, “provide an onboarding package”, and “enabling the computing device of the selected candidate to define the offer of financing terms to customers including a first portion presenting a branding logo of the selected candidate and a second portion presenting the financing terms”), under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these are interpreted as “communicating” and/or “displaying” steps, which are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d).
More specifically, in regards to the interpretation that the “gather information on a plurality of websites of candidate merchants” and “provide an onboarding package”, extra solution activity steps are equivalent to “communicating” steps, see the court cases OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network) and (presenting offers and gathering statistics), OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
Moreover, in regards to the extra solution activity steps of “provide an onboarding package” and “enabling the computing device of the selected candidate to define the offer of financing terms to customers including a first portion presenting a branding logo of the selected candidate and a second portion presenting the financing terms”, and in regards to the elements in the “onboarding package” that comprise extra solution activity elements that are equivalent to “display” elements (“wherein the onboarding package comprises an indication of pre-approval of the selected candidate … and an invitation to continue or complete a process”), see Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1844 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Holding that the claimed menu graphic user interface is an abstract idea under 35 USC §101, because claimant "[did] not claim a particular way of programming or designing the software to create menus that have these features, but instead merely claims the resulting systems").
Independent claim 11 is rejected on the same grounds as independent claim 1.
All dependent claims are also rejected, because they merely further define the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 1-6, 11-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0249689 A1 to O’Neill et al. (“O’Neill”. Eff. Filed Feb. 26, 2016. Published Aug. 31, 2017) in view of US 2019/0087822 A1 to Vasu et al. (“Vasu”. Eff. Filed Sep. 19, 2017. Published Mar. 21, 2019), and further in view of US 2013/0346302 A1 to Purves et al. (“Purves”. Eff Filed on June 20, 2012. Published on Dec. 26, 2013).
In regards to claim 1, O’Neill teaches:
1. An apparatus for facilitating merchant onboarding to a selective financing and payment platform, the apparatus comprising processing circuitry configured to:
automatically gather information on a plurality of websites of candidate merchants via web crawlers or bots configured to scrape information from accepted web sites and avoid rejected websites;
(See O’Neill, para. [0021]: “In this regard, the transaction processor may poll, process, or otherwise scrape posts from the social networking platform by the seller to identify items listed for sale, which may be limited to the social networking platform and account for the seller, or may poll/scrape information from all social networking posts on a social networking platform. The transaction processor may include an automated bot, such as a software program, that periodically, intermittently, or continuously scrapes the posts of the seller or on the social networking platform to identify a post that lists an item for sale from the seller's inventory. Thus, one or more processes of the transaction processor may access the seller's social networking account and/or process the posts of the seller to determine posts having items for sale. The onboarding process for the seller may provide seller/item information, payment information, and other information that may be required for the transaction processor to determine posts having items for sale. Once a social networking post is identified as providing an item for sale, the integration platform may monitor the social networking post to determine purchase requests for the item.”)
The Examiner interprets that O’Neill’s disclosure in para. [0021] of “an automated bot, such as a software program, that periodically, intermittently, or continuously scrapes the posts of the seller or on the social networking platform to identify a post that lists an item for sale from the seller's inventory” inherently anticipates the newly amended feature of “via web crawlers or bots configured to scrape information from accepted web sites and avoid rejected websites”, because O’Neill’s bot scrapes posts of the seller from a pre-defined social networking platform.
… provide an onboarding package to the selected candidate ;
(See O’Neill, para. [0077]: “FIG. 2B is an exemplary flowchart for providing onboarding to an integration platform for item sales through social networking posts of a seller, according to an embodiment. Environment 200 b of FIG. 2B includes seller 1000, social network 1100, buyer 1300, and payment system 1400 discussed in reference to environment 200 a of FIG. 2A. Thus, seller 1000 may correspond to a seller of goods, products or services (e.g., an item or items), which may utilize a device to sell items on social network 1100 after on-boarding with a transaction processing system providing payment system 1400. Buyer 1300 may purchase items on social network 1100 using the transaction processing system after seller 1000 onboards with the transaction processing system to perform social networking sales of seller 1000's inventory through social network 1100.”)
to enable the selected candidate to offer financing terms to customers via the selective financing and payment platform.
(See O’Neill, para. [0047]: “Thus, in various embodiments, purchase request application 112 (or other applications 114) may correspond to specialized hardware and/or software utilized by communication device 110 to provide an interface to permit the user associated with communication device 110 to select payment options and provide payment for an item or items in an invoice, for example, to a merchant through merchant device 120 using transaction processor server 140. Purchase request application 112 may be implemented as a user interface enabling the user to enter payment options, select and provide payment options on checkout/payment of one or more items with a merchant, and complete a transaction for the item(s) through a purchase request for the item(s). Purchase request application 112 may also be used to establish a user account, such as a payment account, with transaction processor server 140 to provide payments through the payment account.”)
However, under a conservative interpretation of O’Neill, it could be argued that O’Neill does not explicitly teach the features below, which are taught by Vasu:
automatically process the gathered information with an adaptive underwriting algorithm to determine whether one or more of the candidate merchants are eligible to be selected candidates for integration into the selective financing and payment platform; and
(See Vasu, para. [0007]: “In one aspect, an onboarding system for onboarding merchants in real-time using digital activity client (DAC) data is provided. The onboarding system includes at least one onboarding computing device that includes a processor communicatively coupled to a memory and is configured to generate one or more risk score rules based on a first set of DAC data received from a DAC computing device and one or more acquirer parameters received from an acquirer computing device. The onboarding computing device is also configured to transmit the one or more risk score rules to the DAC computing device, and receive a risk score for a merchant from the DAC computing device, wherein the risk score is included in a second set of DAC data and is generated by the DAC computing device using the one or more risk score rules. The onboarding computing device is further configured to compare the risk score to a risk score threshold, and determine, based on the comparison, whether to approve or decline the merchant to onboard in the onboarding system.”)
responsive to identification of a selected candidate determined to be eligible, provide an onboarding package to a computing device of the selected candidate … ;
(See Vasu, para. [0007]: “In one aspect, an onboarding system for onboarding merchants in real-time using digital activity client (DAC) data is provided. The onboarding system includes at least one onboarding computing device that includes a processor communicatively coupled to a memory and is configured to generate one or more risk score rules based on a first set of DAC data received from a DAC computing device and one or more acquirer parameters received from an acquirer computing device. The onboarding computing device is also configured to transmit the one or more risk score rules to the DAC computing device, and receive a risk score for a merchant from the DAC computing device, wherein the risk score is included in a second set of DAC data and is generated by the DAC computing device using the one or more risk score rules. The onboarding computing device is further configured to compare the risk score to a risk score threshold, and determine, based on the comparison, whether to approve or decline the merchant to onboard in the onboarding system.”)
(See Vasu, Abstract: “An onboarding system for onboarding merchants in real-time using digital activity client (DAC) data is provided. The onboarding system includes at least one onboarding computing device configured to generate one or more risk score rules based on a first set of DAC data received from a DAC computing device and one or more acquirer parameters received from an acquirer computing device. The onboarding computer device is also configured to transmit the one or more risk score rules to the DAC computing device, and receive a risk score for a merchant from the DAC computing device. The onboarding computing device is further configured to compare the risk score to a risk score threshold, and determine, based on the comparison, whether to approve or decline the merchant to onboard in the onboarding system.”)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA), at the effective filing date of the Application, to include in the method for “Automated processing of online social networking data for integration with an inventory management system”, as taught by O’Neill above, with “Systems and methods for onboarding merchants in real-time for payment processing”, as further taught by Vasu above, because both reference teach similar art, that includes “onboarding system for onboarding merchants” (See Vasu, abstract).
However, under a conservative interpretation of O’Neill in view of Vasu, it could be argued that O’Neill in view of Vasu does not explicitly teach the features below, which are taught by Purves:
wherein the onboarding package comprises an indication of pre-approval of the selected candidate to integrate into the selective financing and payment platform, and an invitation to continue or complete a process to integrate into the selective financing and payment platform, and
(See Purves, para. [0367]: “The Bill Pay platform may also support back end push notifications in some embodiments. This may be a mandatory server-to-server communication that sends notifications regarding payment events. The Postback URL for this exchange may be configured during the seller on-boarding process. Back-end notifications are automatically sent from Bill Pay back-end servers to the seller's back-end servers when the seller's customer makes a payment using the v:buy button tag. To confirm the communication, the Bill Pay server(s) expects an acknowledgement back from the seller's server. If the notification is not received, there is an exponentially increasing time between a decreasing number of retries, and eventually it is abandoned. The seller may use the developer console to specify the following configuration parameters that the Bill Pay servers may use to send back-end notifications to the seller's servers”)
wherein the onboarding package further comprises template materials that are executed at the computing device of the selected candidate to automatically generate an adaptive user interface corresponding to previously encountered web architectures,
the adaptive user interface enabling the computing device of the selected candidate to define the offer of financing terms to customers,
including a first portion presenting a branding logo of the selected candidate and a second portion presenting the financing terms determined by the adaptive underwriting algorithm.
(See Purves, para. [0106]: “In one implementation, the Bill-Pay may inject a Bill-Pay widget 135 into the various platforms 108 a-110 a, e.g., by displaying a Bill-Pay button 140 embedded in the webpage.”)
The Examiner interprets that Purves’s disclosure in para. [0106] of “displaying a Bill-Pay button 140 embedded in the webpage” anticipates the newly amended feature of “including a first portion presenting a branding logo of the selected candidate and a second portion presenting the financing terms” because these widgets are shown in Purves’s Figure 1A as having VisaPay logos, and Figs. 4a to 6D show both logos and financing terms.
(See Purves, para. [0107]: “For example, in one implementation, a user may access his banking site 108 b, and click on the Bill-Pay button 140 and directly pay for an outstanding balance. In another example, the user may receive a bill statement in the email 109 b, wherein the email may comprise a Bill-Pay button 140 to directly facilitate bill payment. In another example, the user may log into a biller site (e.g., a cellular service, etc.) and click on the Bill-Pay button 140 to engage in bill payment. Further implementations including exemplary user interfaces of the Bill-Pay widget 140 are illustrated in FIGS. 4A-6B.”)
(See Purves, para. [0529]: “In some embodiments, as a Wallet merchant, I want an optimized mobile experience for my customers who are transacting on my site on their iPad without having to configure a separate mobile tablet configuration. Given: A merchant who has on-boarded and integrated Wallet on their site. And: the merchant has not configured a separate setting to enable mobile. And: a consumer is shopping on the merchant site via their mobile browser on their iPad. When: the consumer touches the Wallet buy widget after adding items to the cart. Then: the checkout lightbox should display as an overlay on top of the merchant site in an iPad-optimized format and UX for both retina & non-retina display through the end-to-end checkout experience.”)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA), at the effective filing date of the Application, to include in the method for “Automated processing of online social networking data for integration with an inventory management system”, as taught by O’Neill above, with “Systems and methods for onboarding merchants in real-time for payment processing”, as further taught by Vasu above, and further with “Remote Portal Bill Payment Platform Apparatuses, Methods And Systems” as taught by Purves, because all three reference are in the same field of endeavor, which is transaction processing that includes “onboarding system for onboarding merchants” for financial transactions (See Vasu, abstract), and that Purves enables “an optimized mobile experience for my customers who are transacting on my site on their iPad without having to configure a separate mobile tablet configuration” (See Purves, para. [0529]).
In regards to claim 2,
2. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to evaluate the selected candidate for upgraded services or privileges after a predetermined period of time or after a predetermined number of transactions involving the selected candidate.
(See Vasu, para. [0043]: “In the example embodiment, DAC computing device 112 is configured to collect a first set of DAC data from a merchant computing device 110 and transmit such data to onboarding computing device 114. Onboarding computing device 114 uses the first set of DAC data and acquirer parameters provided by at least one acquirer computing device 118 to generate data weights for data included in the first set of DAC data that corresponds to the merchant using merchant computing device 110, for example, data weights may be associated with a time period a merchant has held an account with the DAC, a merchant consumer rating within the DAC, a DAC rating of a merchant, a volume of transactions performed by a merchant using the DAC, a total amount transacted by the merchant using the DAC, whether a merchant has been involved in fraudulent activity, or any other data weight associated with the DAC data and DAC data of the merchant.”)
(See also Vasu, para. [0043]: “Onboarding computing device 114 is further configured to generate risk score rules. Onboarding computing device 114 generates the risk score rules and the risk score threshold by using the acquirer parameters, the generated weights, and other types of data that DAC computing device 112 may collect from merchant computing devices 110.”)
In regards to claim 3,
3. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the adaptive underwriting algorithm is selected based on an industry of the candidate merchants.
(See Vasu, para. [0043]: “In the example embodiment, DAC computing device 112 is configured to collect a first set of DAC data from a merchant computing device 110 and transmit such data to onboarding computing device 114. Onboarding computing device 114 uses the first set of DAC data and acquirer parameters provided by at least one acquirer computing device 118 to generate data weights for data included in the first set of DAC data that corresponds to the merchant using merchant computing device 110, for example, data weights may be associated with a time period a merchant has held an account with the DAC, a merchant consumer rating within the DAC, a DAC rating of a merchant, a volume of transactions performed by a merchant using the DAC, a total amount transacted by the merchant using the DAC, whether a merchant has been involved in fraudulent activity, or any other data weight associated with the DAC data and DAC data of the merchant. For example, onboarding computing device 114 may assign more weight to the fraudulent activity associated with a merchant compared to the total amount transacted by the merchant using the DAC. Onboarding computing device 114 is further configured to generate risk score rules. Onboarding computing device 114 generates the risk score rules and the risk score threshold by using the acquirer parameters, the generated weights, and other types of data that DAC computing device 112 may collect from merchant computing devices 110.”)
The Examiner interprets that Vasu’s disclosure that “or any other data weight associated with the DAC data and DAC data of the merchant” means that it would be an obvious variation to have one data weight for “the industry of the candidate merchant”, and that the use of such a weight would be an obvious variation of the claimed “wherein the adaptive underwriting algorithm is selected based on an industry of the candidate merchants”.
In regards to claim 4,
4. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the adaptive underwriting algorithm is selected based on a product offered by the candidate merchants.
(See Vasu, para. [0043]: “In the example embodiment, DAC computing device 112 is configured to collect a first set of DAC data from a merchant computing device 110 and transmit such data to onboarding computing device 114. Onboarding computing device 114 uses the first set of DAC data and acquirer parameters provided by at least one acquirer computing device 118 to generate data weights for data included in the first set of DAC data that corresponds to the merchant using merchant computing device 110, for example, data weights may be associated with a time period a merchant has held an account with the DAC, a merchant consumer rating within the DAC, a DAC rating of a merchant, a volume of transactions performed by a merchant using the DAC, a total amount transacted by the merchant using the DAC, whether a merchant has been involved in fraudulent activity, or any other data weight associated with the DAC data and DAC data of the merchant. For example, onboarding computing device 114 may assign more weight to the fraudulent activity associated with a merchant compared to the total amount transacted by the merchant using the DAC. Onboarding computing device 114 is further configured to generate risk score rules. Onboarding computing device 114 generates the risk score rules and the risk score threshold by using the acquirer parameters, the generated weights, and other types of data that DAC computing device 112 may collect from merchant computing devices 110.”)
The Examiner interprets that Vasu’s disclosure that “or any other data weight associated with the DAC data and DAC data of the merchant” means that it would be an obvious variation to have one data weight for “a product offered by the candidate merchants”, and that the use of such a weight would be an obvious variation of the claimed “wherein the adaptive underwriting algorithm is selected based on a product offered by the candidate merchants”.
In regards to claim 5,
5. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the gathered information includes objective information and subjective information about the candidate merchants.
(See Vasu, para. [0043]: “In the example embodiment, DAC computing device 112 is configured to collect a first set of DAC data from a merchant computing device 110 and transmit such data to onboarding computing device 114. Onboarding computing device 114 uses the first set of DAC data and acquirer parameters provided by at least one acquirer computing device 118 to generate data weights for data included in the first set of DAC data that corresponds to the merchant using merchant computing device 110, for example, data weights may be associated with a time period a merchant has held an account with the DAC, a merchant consumer rating within the DAC, a DAC rating of a merchant, a volume of transactions performed by a merchant using the DAC, a total amount transacted by the merchant using the DAC, whether a merchant has been involved in fraudulent activity, or any other data weight associated with the DAC data and DAC data of the merchant. For example, onboarding computing device 114 may assign more weight to the fraudulent activity associated with a merchant compared to the total amount transacted by the merchant using the DAC. Onboarding computing device 114 is further configured to generate risk score rules. Onboarding computing device 114 generates the risk score rules and the risk score threshold by using the acquirer parameters, the generated weights, and other types of data that DAC computing device 112 may collect from merchant computing devices 110.”)
The Examiner interprets that “a time period a merchant has held an account with the DAC” is objective information, and that “a merchant consumer rating within the DAC” is subjective information.
In regards to claim 6,
6. The apparatus of claim 5, wherein the objective information is related to sales of a product, and wherein the subjective information is generated from social media activity or reputation scoring.
(See Vasu, para. [0043]: “In the example embodiment, DAC computing device 112 is configured to collect a first set of DAC data from a merchant computing device 110 and transmit such data to onboarding computing device 114. Onboarding computing device 114 uses the first set of DAC data and acquirer parameters provided by at least one acquirer computing device 118 to generate data weights for data included in the first set of DAC data that corresponds to the merchant using merchant computing device 110, for example, data weights may be associated with a time period a merchant has held an account with the DAC, a merchant consumer rating within the DAC, a DAC rating of a merchant, a volume of transactions performed by a merchant using the DAC, a total amount transacted by the merchant using the DAC, whether a merchant has been involved in fraudulent activity, or any other data weight associated with the DAC data and DAC data of the merchant. For example, onboarding computing device 114 may assign more weight to the fraudulent activity associated with a merchant compared to the total amount transacted by the merchant using the DAC. Onboarding computing device 114 is further configured to generate risk score rules. Onboarding computing device 114 generates the risk score rules and the risk score threshold by using the acquirer parameters, the generated weights, and other types of data that DAC computing device 112 may collect from merchant computing devices 110.”)
In regards to claim 7,
7. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein automatically gathering information on the plurality of websites of candidate merchants is performed using programmed web crawlers or bots configured to scrape information from accepted websites and avoid rejected websites.
(See O’Neill, para. [0021]: “In this regard, the transaction processor may poll, process, or otherwise scrape posts from the social networking platform by the seller to identify items listed for sale, which may be limited to the social networking platform and account for the seller, or may poll/scrape information from all social networking posts on a social networking platform. The transaction processor may include an automated bot, such as a software program, that periodically, intermittently, or continuously scrapes the posts of the seller or on the social networking platform to identify a post that lists an item for sale from the seller's inventory. Thus, one or more processes of the transaction processor may access the seller's social networking account and/or process the posts of the seller to determine posts having items for sale. The onboarding process for the seller may provide seller/item information, payment information, and other information that may be required for the transaction processor to determine posts having items for sale. Once a social networking post is identified as providing an item for sale, the integration platform may monitor the social networking post to determine purchase requests for the item.”)
The Examiner interprets that “an automated bot, such as a software program, that periodically, intermittently, or continuously scrapes the posts of the seller or on the social networking platform” inherently avoids other websites.
In regards to claims 11-17, they are respectively rejected on the same grounds as claims 1-7.
In regards to claim 20, it is rejected on the same grounds as claims 1 and 11, because the “Bill-Pay widget 135” shown in Purves’s figures teaches a branding logo and loan terms for a credit card, which is a type of a loan.
Response to Amendments
Re: Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The 35 USC § 101 rejections have been amended, as necessitated by the amendments to the claims.
Re: Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The 35 USC § 103 rejections have been amended, as necessitated by the amendments to the claims. The Examiner interprets that the previously cited art teaches the features that were newly added to the independent claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 should be directed to Examiner Ayal Sharon, whose telephone number is (571) 272-5614, and fax number is (571) 273-1794. The Examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 9 AM and 6 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christine M Behncke can be reached on (571) 272-8103. The fax 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.
Sincerely,
/Ayal I. Sharon/
Examiner, Art Unit 3695
December 31, 2025