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
This action is in reply to the communications filed on 12/23/2025.
Claims 1 and 11 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made Final.
Examiner Request
The Applicant is requested to indicate where in the specification there is support for future claim amendments to avoid U.S.C 112(a) issues that can arise. The Examiner thanks the Applicant in advance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 11, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: line 15 and Claim 11: line 15 recite the limitations “generating a display interface screen at the client device” and “generate a display interface screen at the client device,” respectively. A “client device” has not been previously recited in independent claims 1 and 11. It appears there is a typographical mistake. For compact examination purposes, Examiner interpreted the instances recited in Claim 1: line 15 and Claim 11: line 15 as “generating a display interface screen at a client device” and “generate a display interface screen at a client device,” respectively. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15: lines 2-3 recites the limitation “communicating an offer message for display at the computing device associated with the merchant.” A “computing device associated with the merchant” has not been previously recited in independent claim 11, which claim 15 is dependent upon Independent claim 11. It appears there is a typographical mistake. For compact examination purposes, Examiner interpreted the instances recited in Claim 15: lines 2-3 as “communicating an offer message for display at a computing device associated with the merchant.” Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of identifying a set of optimized financing programs by estimating and determining the rating of cash flow of the financing programs, and without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed to a method, which is one of the statutory categories of invention; and Claim 11 is directed to an apparatus, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Claim 1 is directed to a method for improving user interface elements to be presented in association with identifying a set of optimized financing programs to provide to a computing device of a merchant, the method comprising: receiving historical loan application data defining historical parameters associated with corresponding historical loan applications; replacing at least a portion of the historical parameters of the historical loan application data with new parameters associated with different loan terms to define a simulated loan data set defining simulated financing programs; determining a selection probability score for each of the simulated financing programs, the selection probability score indicating a likelihood of customer selection of each respective one of the simulated financing programs; determining a cash flow rating for each of the simulated financing programs, the cash flow rating estimating cash flow over time for the each respective one of the simulated financing programs; generating a display interface screen at the client device, the display interface screen including entry fields for entering merchant business metrics including a first text box receiving entry of industry information by the merchant, a second text box receiving entry of product information associated with the merchant, and a third text box receiving definition of an objective or goal of the merchant; determining a valuation score based on the selection probability score and the cash flow rating of the each respective one of the simulated financing programs; determining the set of optimized financing programs based on the valuation score of the each respective one of the simulated financing programs and based on the merchant business metrics; and employing a multi-arm bandit (MAB) optimization algorithm to define testing to determine an optimal user interface widget to employ for customer engagement with respect to the determined set of optimized financing programs, wherein the MAB optimization algorithm is executed on batch data at a selected cadence for each experiment to dynamically allocate traffic for experimentation for checkout flow and repayment messages using Thompson Sampling to speed convergence of experiments associated with the defined testing and employ perpetual learning adaptive to external environment changes to determine the optimal user interface widget based on user context with respect to obtaining or paying back a loan to minimize cost instead of optimizing loan volume, wherein different widgets defining respective different webpages, buttons, and colors are tested corresponding to respective different tasks, and wherein each experiment is assigned a budget to define boundaries for exploration of feature space relative to data collection in terms of cost. These limitations describe the abstract idea of identifying a set of optimized financing programs by estimating and determining the rating of cash flow of the financing programs, (with the exception of the italicized and bolded terms above), which is mitigating risk by determining an optimized set of financing programs to offer to a merchant to enable the merchant to offer one or more of the financing programs from the optimized set to prospective customers, while also minimizing risk or maximizing revenue to the underwriter; therefore, corresponding to a fundamental economic principle or practice (including mitigating risk). Hence, a fundamental economic principle or practice (mitigating risk) is a Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The abstract idea is also the enabling of the merchant to offer one or more financing programs to prospective customers, which is a commercial interaction. Therefore, a commercial interaction is also a Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The system limitations, e.g., a computing device of a merchant; user interface elements, display interface screen, client device, multi-arm bandit (MAB) optimization algorithm, optimal user interface widget, perpetual learning, and different widgets do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. Thus, Claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of a computing device of a merchant; user interface elements, display interface screen, client device, multi-arm bandit (MAB) optimization algorithm, optimal user interface widget, perpetual learning, and different widgets are no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements listed above are all recited at a high level of generality and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computing arrangement. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than to implement the claimed invention (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, the recitations of additional elements do not meaningfully apply the abstract idea and hence do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, claim 1 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO).
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of a computing device of a merchant; user interface elements, display interface screen, client device, multi-arm bandit (MAB) optimization algorithm, optimal user interface optimal user interface widget, perpetual learning, and different widgets are recited at a high level of generality in that it results in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements when considered separately and as an ordered combination do not amount to add significantly more as these limitations provide nothing more than to simply apply the exception in a generic computer environment (Step 2B: NO). Thus, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-10 are directed to a method, which recites a series of steps that describe the abstract idea of identifying a set of optimized financing programs by estimating and determining the rating of cash flow of the financing programs. Furthermore, dependent claims 6-10 are directed to a method, which recites a series of steps, e.g., wherein determining the selection probability score comprises applying the each of the simulated financing programs to a take-up and terms selection model to determine the selection probability score; wherein the take-up and terms selection model is dynamically adjusted over time using machine learning; wherein determining the cash flow rating comprises applying the each of the simulated financing programs to a loan transition model to determine the cash flow rating; wherein the loan transition model is dynamically adjusted over time using machine learning; wherein determining the selection probability score, determining the cash flow rating, and determining the valuation score are each performed using simulation scaling. These limitations describe the abstract idea of identifying a set of optimized financing programs by estimating and determining the rating of cash flow of the financing programs, (with the exception of the italicized and bolded terms above), which is mitigating risk by determining an optimized set of financing programs to offer to a merchant to enable the merchant to offer one or more of the financing programs from the optimized set to prospective customers, while also minimizing risk or maximizing revenue to the underwriter; therefore, corresponding to a fundamental economic principle or practice (including mitigating risk). Hence, a fundamental economic principle or practice (mitigating risk) is a Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The abstract idea is also the enabling of the merchant to offer one or more financing programs to prospective customers, which is a commercial interaction. Therefore, a commercial interaction is also a Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Thus, claims 2-10 are directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements of a computing device of a merchant; user interface elements, display interface screen, client device, multi-arm bandit (MAB) optimization algorithm, optimal user interface optimal user interface widget, perpetual learning, different widgets, take-up and terms selection model, machine learning, loan transition model, and simulation scaling, are no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than to implement the claimed invention (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, the recitations of additional elements do not meaningfully apply the abstract idea and hence do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Furthermore, the additional elements: a computing device of a merchant; user interface elements, display interface screen, client device, multi-arm bandit (MAB) optimization algorithm, optimal user interface optimal user interface widget, perpetual learning, different widgets, take-up and terms selection model, machine learning, loan transition model, and simulation scaling, do not amount to add significantly more as these limitations provide nothing more than to simply apply the exception in a generic computer environment.
Claim 11 is directed to an apparatus for improving user interface elements to be presented in association with identifying a set of optimized financing programs to provide to a merchant, the apparatus comprising processing circuitry configured to: receive historical loan application data defining historical parameters associated with corresponding historical loan applications; replace at least a portion of the historical parameters of the historical loan application data with new parameters associated with different loan terms to define a simulated loan data set defining simulated financing programs; determine a selection probability score for each of the simulated financing programs, the selection probability score indicating a likelihood of customer selection of each respective one of the simulated financing programs; determine a cash flow rating for each of the simulated financing programs, the cash flow rating estimating cash flow over time for the each respective one of the simulated financing programs; generate a display interface screen at the client device, the display interface screen including entry fields for entering merchant business metrics including a first text box receiving entry of industry information by the merchant, a second text box receiving entry of product information associated with the merchant, and a third text box receiving definition of an objective or goal of the merchant; determine a valuation score based on the selection probability score and the cash flow rating of the each respective one of the simulated financing programs; determine the set of optimized financing programs based on the valuation score of the each respective one of the simulated financing programs and based on the merchant business metrics; and employ a multi-arm bandit (MAB) optimization algorithm to define testing to determine an optimal user interface widget to employ for customer engagement with respect to the determined set of optimized financing programs, wherein the MAB optimization algorithm is executed on batch data at a selected cadence for each experiment to dynamically allocate traffic for experimentation for checkout flow and repayment messages using Thompson Sampling to speed convergence of experiments associated with the defined testing and employ perpetual learning adaptive to external environment changes to determine the optimal user interface widget based on user context with respect to obtaining or paying back a loan to minimize cost instead of optimizing loan volume, wherein different widgets defining respective different webpages, buttons, and colors are tested corresponding to respective different tasks, and wherein each experiment is assigned a budget to define boundaries for exploration of feature space relative to data collection in terms of cost. These limitations describe the abstract idea of identifying a set of optimized financing programs by estimating and determining the rating of cash flow of the financing programs, (with the exception of the italicized and bolded terms above), which is mitigating risk by determining an optimized set of financing programs to offer to a merchant to enable the merchant to offer one or more of the financing programs from the optimized set to prospective customers, while also minimizing risk or maximizing revenue to the underwriter; therefore, corresponding to a fundamental economic principle or practice (including mitigating risk). Hence, a fundamental economic principle or practice (mitigating risk) is a Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The abstract idea is also the enabling of the merchant to offer one or more financing programs to prospective customers, which is a commercial interaction. Therefore, a commercial interaction is also a Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The system limitations, e.g., an apparatus, user interface elements, processing circuitry, display interface screen, client device, multi-arm bandit (MAB) optimization algorithm, optimal user interface widget, perpetual learning, and different widgets do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. Thus, Claim 11 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of an apparatus, user interface elements, processing circuitry, display interface screen, client device, multi-arm bandit (MAB) optimization algorithm, optimal user interface widget, perpetual learning, and different widgets are no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements listed above are all recited at a high level of generality and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computing arrangement. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than to implement the claimed invention (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, the recitations of additional elements do not meaningfully apply the abstract idea and hence do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, claim 11 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO).
Claim 11 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of an apparatus, user interface elements, processing circuitry, display interface screen, client device, multi-arm bandit (MAB) optimization algorithm, optimal user interface widget, perpetual learning, and different widgets are recited at a high level of generality in that it results in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements when considered separately and as an ordered combination do not amount to add significantly more as these limitations provide nothing more than to simply apply the exception in a generic computer environment (Step 2B: NO). Thus, claim 11 is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 12-20 are directed to an apparatus, which performs a series of steps that describe the abstract idea of identifying a set of optimized financing programs by estimating and determining the rating of cash flow of the financing programs. Furthermore, dependent claims 15-20 are directed to a system, which performs a series of steps, e.g., wherein the processing circuitry is further configured for communicating an offer message for display at the computing device associated with the merchant, the offer message including the predetermined number of the set of optimized financing programs; wherein determining the selection probability score comprises applying the each of the simulated financing programs to a take-up and terms selection model to determine the selection probability score; wherein the take-up and terms selection model is dynamically adjusted over time using machine learning; wherein determining the cash flow rating comprises applying the each of the simulated financing programs to a loan transition model to determine the cash flow rating; wherein the loan transition model is dynamically adjusted over time using machine learning; and wherein determining the selection probability score, determining the cash flow rating, and determining the valuation score are each performed using simulation scaling. These limitations describe the abstract idea of identifying a set of optimized financing programs by estimating and determining the rating of cash flow of the financing programs, (with the exception of the italicized and bolded terms above), which is mitigating risk by determining an optimized set of financing programs to offer to a merchant to enable the merchant to offer one or more of the financing programs from the optimized set to prospective customers, while also minimizing risk or maximizing revenue to the underwriter; therefore, corresponding to a fundamental economic principle or practice (including mitigating risk). Hence, a fundamental economic principle or practice (mitigating risk) is a Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The abstract idea is also the enabling of the merchant to offer one or more financing programs to prospective customers, which is a commercial interaction. Therefore, a commercial interaction is also a Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Thus, claims 12-20 are directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements of an apparatus, user interface elements, processing circuitry, display interface screen, client device, multi-arm bandit (MAB) optimization algorithm, optimal user interface widget, perpetual learning, different widgets, computing device associated with the merchant, take-up and terms selection model, machine learning, loan transition model, and simulation scaling, are no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than to implement the claimed invention (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, the recitations of additional elements do not meaningfully apply the abstract idea and hence do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Furthermore, the additional elements: an apparatus, user interface elements, processing circuitry, display interface screen, client device, multi-arm bandit (MAB) optimization algorithm, optimal user interface widget, perpetual learning, different widgets, computing device associated with the merchant, take-up and terms selection model, machine learning, loan transition model, and simulation scaling, do not amount to add significantly more as these limitations provide nothing more than to simply apply the exception in a generic computer environment.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 have further defined the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1 and 11; and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, and hence are abstract in nature for the reason presented above. The dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, claims 2-10 and 12-20 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Thus, claims 1-20 are not patent-eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 12/23/2025 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive due to the following reasons:
With respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant arguments are moot in view of the grounds of rejections presented above in this office action. The arguments are addressed to the extent they apply to the amended claims.
Applicant argues that “Applicant has amended independent claims 1 and 11 to incorporate computer device limitations aimed at claiming other than an abstract idea, or in any case, necessarily restricting the claim from being directed to the abstract idea and providing more details to avoid reciting the invention "at a high level of generality."
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Under Step 2A: Prong I, Examiner respectfully notes that the claims, as amended, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of identifying a set of optimized financing programs by estimating and determining the rating of cash flow of the financing programs; without significantly more. The series of steps recited in claim 1, as amended, describe the abstract idea of identifying a set of optimized financing and programs by estimating and determining the rating of cash flow of the financing programs, which is mitigating risk by determining an optimized set of financing programs to offer to a merchant to enable the merchant to offer one or more of the financing programs from the optimized set to prospective customers, while also minimizing risk or maximizing revenue to the underwriter; therefore, corresponding to a fundamental economic principle or practice (including mitigating risk). Hence, a fundamental economic principle or practice (mitigating risk) is a Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The abstract idea is also the enabling of the merchant to offer one or more financing programs to prospective customers, which is a commercial interaction. Therefore, a commercial interaction is also a Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Furthermore, the system limitations (Claim 1), e.g., a computing device of a merchant; user interface elements, display interface screen, client device, multi-arm bandit (MAB) optimization algorithm, optimal user interface widget, perpetual learning, and different widgets do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea.
Furthermore, Examiner respectfully notes that the claims are first analyzed in the absence of technology to determine if it recites an abstract idea. The additional limitations of technology are then considered to determine if it restricts the claim from reciting an abstract idea. In this case, and as discussed in the 2019 and 2024 Updated Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, it is determined that the additional limitations of technology do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. Furthermore, Examiner respectfully notes that the recited features in the limitations (Claim 11): “an apparatus for improving user interface elements to be presented in association with identifying a set of optimized financing programs to provide to a merchant, the apparatus comprising processing circuitry configured to: receive historical loan application data defining historical parameters associated with corresponding historical loan applications; replace at least a portion of the historical parameters of the historical loan application data with new parameters associated with different loan terms to define a simulated loan data set defining simulated financing programs; determine a selection probability score for each of the simulated financing programs, the selection probability score indicating a likelihood of customer selection of each respective one of the simulated financing programs; determine a cash flow rating for each of the simulated financing programs, the cash flow rating estimating cash flow over time for the each respective one of the simulated financing programs; generate a display interface screen at the client device, the display interface screen including entry fields for entering merchant business metrics including a first text box receiving entry of industry information by the merchant, a second text box receiving entry of product information associated with the merchant, and a third text box receiving definition of an objective or goal of the merchant; determine a valuation score based on the selection probability score and the cash flow rating of the each respective one of the simulated financing programs; determine the set of optimized financing programs based on the valuation score of the each respective one of the simulated financing programs and based on the merchant business metrics; and employ a multi-arm bandit (MAB) optimization algorithm to define testing to determine an optimal user interface widget to employ for customer engagement with respect to the determined set of optimized financing programs, wherein the MAB optimization algorithm is executed on batch data at a selected cadence for each experiment to dynamically allocate traffic for experimentation for checkout flow and repayment messages using Thompson Sampling to speed convergence of experiments associated with the defined testing and employ perpetual learning adaptive to external environment changes to determine the optimal user interface widget based on user context with respect to obtaining or paying back a loan to minimize cost instead of optimizing loan volume, wherein different widgets defining respective different webpages, buttons, and colors are tested corresponding to respective different tasks, and wherein each experiment is assigned a budget to define boundaries for exploration of feature space relative to data collection in terms of cost” are making use of a computer and the computer limitations do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea as discussed above under Step 2A-Prong I of the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection.
Hence, Examiner has also considered each and every arguments under Step 2A-Prong I and concludes that these arguments are not persuasive. For example, under Step 2A-Prong I, Examiner considers each and every limitation to determine if the claim recites an abstract idea. In this case, it is determined that the claim recites an abstract idea and the additional limitations of a computer device does not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. The recited steps, as amended, are abstract in nature as there are no technical/technology improvements as a result of these steps. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea. Whether the claim integrates the abstract idea into a practical application by providing technical/technology improvements are considered under Step 2A-Prong II.
Applicant argues that “the recited steps of claims 1 and 11 are alleged to merely manage or process data without any resulting computer functionality or technical improvement. Any improvement is alleged to be only an improvement to the judicial exception itself. The additional elements, which include the display interface screen and multi-arm bandit optimization (MAB) algorithm and widgets are further alleged to be merely steps of gathering and outputting data. Applicant respectfully disagrees.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Under Step 2A: Prong II, as previously discussed in the Final Office action dated 04/11/2025 and Non-Final Office action dated 09/23/2025, Examiner respectfully notes that there is no improved technology in simply presenting, providing, receiving, replacing, defining, determining, estimating, executing, allocating, generating, displaying, entering, testing, assigning, and outputting data (i.e., historical loan data, simulated loan data, customer data, financing data, valuation score data, batch data etc.). The disclosed invention simply cannot be equated to improvement to technological practices or computers. There is no technical improvement at all. Instead, Applicant recites (claim 11) “an apparatus for improving user interface elements to be presented in association with identifying a set of optimized financing programs to provide to a merchant, the apparatus comprising processing circuitry configured to: receive historical loan application data defining historical parameters associated with corresponding historical loan applications; replace at least a portion of the historical parameters of the historical loan application data with new parameters associated with different loan terms to define a simulated loan data set defining simulated financing programs; determine a selection probability score for each of the simulated financing programs, the selection probability score indicating a likelihood of customer selection of each respective one of the simulated financing programs; determine a cash flow rating for each of the simulated financing programs, the cash flow rating estimating cash flow over time for the each respective one of the simulated financing programs; generate a display interface screen at the client device, the display interface screen including entry fields for entering merchant business metrics including a first text box receiving entry of industry information by the merchant, a second text box receiving entry of product information associated with the merchant, and a third text box receiving definition of an objective or goal of the merchant; determine a valuation score based on the selection probability score and the cash flow rating of the each respective one of the simulated financing programs; determine the set of optimized financing programs based on the valuation score of the each respective one of the simulated financing programs and based on the merchant business metrics; and employ a multi-arm bandit (MAB) optimization algorithm to define testing to determine an optimal user interface widget to employ for customer engagement with respect to the determined set of optimized financing programs, wherein the MAB optimization algorithm is executed on batch data at a selected cadence for each experiment to dynamically allocate traffic for experimentation for checkout flow and repayment messages using Thompson Sampling to speed convergence of experiments associated with the defined testing and employ perpetual learning adaptive to external environment changes to determine the optimal user interface widget based on user context with respect to obtaining or paying back a loan to minimize cost instead of optimizing loan volume, wherein different widgets defining respective different webpages, buttons, and colors are tested corresponding to respective different tasks, and wherein each experiment is assigned a budget to define boundaries for exploration of feature space relative to data collection in terms of cost.” The recited features in the limitations, as amended, do not result in computer functionality or technical improvement. Furthermore, Examiner respectfully notes that Applicant is simply using a computer to input, process, and output data. As previously discussed in the Final Office action dated 04/11/2025 and Non-Final Office action dated 09/23/2025, the recited features in the limitations does not disclose a technical solution to technical problem, but simply a business solution. Specifically, the recited steps in independent claims 1 and 11, as amended, are merely managing/processing data (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)) and does not result in computer functionality or technical improvement. Thus, Applicant has simply provided a business method practice of generating and transmitting (i.e., managing/processing) data, and no technical solution or improvement has been disclosed. Moreover, there is no technology/technical improvement as a result of implementing the abstract idea. The recited limitations in the pending claims simply amount to the abstract idea of generating and transmitting historical loan data, simulated loan data, customer data, financing data, valuation score data, batch data, and etc. There is no computer functionality improvement or technology improvement. The claim does not provide a technical solution to a technical problem. If there is an improvement, it is to the abstract idea and not to technology. Additionally, Examiner notes that it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the judicial exception itself (e.g., recited fundamental economic principle or practice and/or commercial interaction) is not an improvement in technology (See, MPEP 2106.05(a)(II)). Moreover, claim 1 and claim 11, as amended, recites the additional elements of a computing device of a merchant, apparatus, user interface elements, processing circuitry, display interface screen, client device, multi-arm bandit (MAB) optimization algorithm, optimal user interface widget, perpetual learning, and different widgets. The recited limitations, as amended, are merely steps of gathering and outputting data. In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and output, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05.Thus, the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application; and these arguments are not persuasive.
Additionally, these steps, as amended, are recited as being performed by a computing device of a merchant, apparatus, user interface elements, processing circuitry, display interface screen, client device, multi-arm bandit (MAB) optimization algorithm, optimal user interface widget, perpetual learning, and different widgets. The additional elements: a computing device of a merchant, apparatus, user interface elements, processing circuitry, display interface screen, client device, multi-arm bandit (MAB) optimization algorithm, optimal user interface widget, perpetual learning, and different widgets are used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of receiving, processing, and outputting data. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As previously discussed, a computing device of a merchant, apparatus, user interface elements, processing circuitry, display interface screen, client device, multi-arm bandit (MAB) optimization algorithm, optimal user interface widget, perpetual learning, and different widgets are used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong I, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, the recitation of a computing device of a merchant, apparatus, user interface elements, processing circuitry, display interface screen, client device, multi-arm bandit (MAB) optimization algorithm, optimal user interface widget, perpetual learning, and different widgets in the limitations of claims 1 and 11, as amended, merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. The limitations, which are emphasized in the Applicant’s arguments merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment; and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. Thus, these arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “the claimed invention provides additional elements, for example, including the MAB algorithm and its components, that are neither well-understood, nor routine or conventional. In particular, the claimed features, when considered as a whole, adding specific limitations other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, and adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, e.g., a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of various computer components for filtering Internet content…. In the present case, the MAB algorithm, and its components are defined in detail. Moreover, their usage is not merely to improve the alleged abstract idea or judicial exception of identifying a set of optimized financing programs. Instead, the MAB algorithm impacts testing and experimentation, a separate technological arena, that are separately used to improve provision of UI elements in a non-conventional way. It is the improvement in testing and experimentation, which speeds convergence (and saves computer resources), and also employs perpetual learning to be adaptive to changes, which is the additional element that should be appreciated as dispositive under the analysis of Step 2B. Thus, the claimed invention provides a practical application by improving a technology (i.e., efficient information gathering all on one screen), and also includes additional elements that amount to substantially more than any abstract idea (i.e., speeding testing and experimentation convergence and employing perpetual learning) since the tool described is key to the solution. As such, independent claims 1 and 11 are each directed to applications or functions that are patent eligible at least by reciting an inventive concept and practical application…. For all the reasons provided above, Applicant respectfully submits that claims 1-20 are presently in condition for allowance.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Under Step 2B, Examiner respectfully notes that all of Applicant's arguments have been reviewed, and the inventive concept cannot be furnished by a judicial exception. The improvements argued are to the abstract idea and not to technology. The technical limitations are simply utilized as a tool to implement the abstract idea without adding significantly more. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea, and hence these arguments are not persuasive. The presence of a computer does not make the claimed solution necessarily rooted in computer technology. Furthermore, Examiner notes that the courts have determined that processing data is well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of a computer when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). Thus, the recited combination of steps in claims 1 and 11 operate in a well-understood, routine, conventional and generic way. As noted above, independent claims 1 and 11 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of a computing device of a merchant, apparatus, user interface elements, processing circuitry, display interface screen, client device, multi-arm bandit (MAB) optimization algorithm, optimal user interface widget, perpetual learning, and different widgets are recited at a high level of generality in that it results in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements when considered separately and as an ordered combination do not amount to add significantly more as these limitations provide nothing more than to simply apply the exception in a generic computer environment.
Applying the 2019 and 2024 Updated Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility here, and as explained with respect to Step 2A, Prong II, the additional elements: a computing device of a merchant, apparatus, user interface elements, processing circuitry, display interface screen, client device, multi-arm bandit (MAB) optimization algorithm, optimal user interface widget, perpetual learning, and different widgets, are at best mere instructions to “apply” the abstract idea, which cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As discussed in Step 2A, Prong II above, the claim limitations are recited at a high level of generality. These elements simply amount to receiving and outputting data and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). As discussed in Step 2A, Prong II above, the recitation of a computer/processor to perform recited limitations, as amended, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, which do not provide an inventive concept.
Hence, Examiner respectfully declines Applicant’s request to withdraw the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 1-20.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is the following:
Merrill (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2016/0155193 A1) “Methods and systems for automatically generating high quality adverse action notifications”
Bianchi (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0091861 A1) “System and method for credit score based on informal financial transactions information”
Chandler (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2018/0082371 A1) “Systems and methods for electronic account certification and enhanced credit reporting”
Merrill (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2018/0365765 A1) “Adverse action systems and methods for communicating adverse action notifications for processing systems using different ensemble modules”
Bonfigli (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2021/0027357 A1) “Systems and methods for credit card selection based on a consumer's personal spending”
Mimassi (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2021/0241370 A1) “System and method for financial services for abstraction of economies of scale for small businesses”
Cherry (U.S. Patent No. US 11,468,455 B2) “Automatic determination of card data based on network category codes”
Crawford (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2003/0046223 A1) “Method and apparatus for explaining credit scores”
Mukherjee (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2023/0401284 A1) “Hybrid quantum computing system for hyper parameter optimization in machine learning”
Rosenbaum (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2022/0398650 A1) “Systems, methods, computing platforms, and storage media for generating and optimizing virtual storefront templates”
Barlaskar (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2023/0084642 A1) “Routing messages through a secure messaging platform”
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 from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED H MUSTAFA whose telephone number is (571)270-7978. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 - 5:00.
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, Michael W Anderson can be reached on 571-270-0508. 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.
/MOHAMMED H MUSTAFA/Examiner, Art Unit 3693
/ERIC T WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693