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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. The following is a NON-FINAL Office Action in response to the communication received on 02/18/26. Claims 1-6, 8-16, 18-20 are now pending in this application.
2. A request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application AFTER FINAL rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the FINALITY of the previous Office Action has been WITHDRAWN pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/18/26 has been entered.
Response to Amendments
3. Applicants Amendment has been acknowledged in that: Claims 1, 11 have been amended; hence such, Claims 1-6, 8-16, 18-20 are now pending in this application.
The SUBJECT MATTER ELIGIBILITY DECLARATION (SMED) under 37 CFR 1.132 filed on 2/18/26 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 1-6, 8-16, 18-20 based upon the claims rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more as set forth in the last Office action because:
Examiner summarizes each issue and provides a response:
Issue#1
9. With respect to points 7 and 8 above, I have noted in my review of the '831 application that the inventors were focused on attempting to improve the user experience associated with making purchases involving a loan that is previously setup with the lender in advance (see page 2, paragraphs [0006] and [0007]). In particular, these paragraphs of the '831 application explain how there needs to be a balance between the lending risk associated with extending credit to a borrower, and the case of the interaction that the borrower has in obtaining the loan. This balance is optimized by data driven decision making, which is precisely are in which my expertise has frequently been sought throughout the years, Paragraph [0006] explains how embarrassing it can be for customers to be at checkout and not be able to complete a transaction due to the denial of credit at checkout, To address this, part of the solution is to enable loans to be set up in advance SO that the processing time and accuracy of decision making at checkout time can be enhanced (see paragraph [0022]). In this same section, it is further identified that a complicating factor for setting up loans in advance may be to match a later transaction to an earlier loan set up. Thus, a goal of the inventors was to provide a user experience that would not only provide flexible options for obtaining credit, but to build goodwill and competitive advantage through the provision of a process that grants that flexibility in the context of a specifically structured interaction that attempts to compare stored estimated purchase amount and merchant identity information associated with a selected financing option to an amount of a current transaction and identity of the merchant involved in the current transaction to determine whether the transaction maps to an earlier defined future purchase (see FIGS. 5 and 6 and corresponding descriptions in paragraphs [0059] to [0067]). As part of this process, the '831 application describes a number of things that are specifically show to the customer when defining the future purchase, which includes a display of the loan terms that will govern the future purchase (see operation 420 in FIG. 5, and paragraph [0059]). This presentation of loan terms further includes the presentation of an indication of a purchase window inside which the transaction must be carried out in order to have any chance of matching (see and Moreover, that purchase window is a variable window that changes based on a number of factors, which include the creditworthiness of the customer and prior relationship information associated with the merchant (see paragraphs [0060] and [0061]). Thus, as I read the *831 application, it seems that the inventors were aiming at solving a problem of balancing the provision of adequate information into the information exchange associated with setting up a pre-approved loan in order to enable a later mapping of that pre-approved loan to its corresponding transaction to be conducted with accuracy to minimize the likelihood of an uncomfortable experience for the customer at checkout while avoiding any unacceptable increase in risk to the lender.
Examiner Response
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The declaration states that there must be “balance between the lending risk associated with extending credit to a borrower, and the ease of the interaction that the borrower has in obtaining the loan…. The specific means for gathering and then employing the information gathered in this paradigm is therefore a balance problem, as noted above, which is solved via unique set of structured interactions (See pages 5-6 of the declaration).
The ”balance problem” that the declaration refers to (and what the claimed invention addresses) is a business problem (steps for processing a transaction between a merchant and a custom
er) with a business solution.
The cited paras are reproduced below, which supports this conclusion:
[0006] This process is, in many cases, desirably enhanced to try to make the user experience as positive as possible by, for example, making decisions on approval faster, or by making various aspects of obtaining or servicing the loan easier. However, the user nevertheless faces some risk that the loan may not be approved, and the embarrassment or annoyance of being denied approval at checkout can be very frustrating for some users. Like the enhancements to the user experience in this context, this potential problem can also be dealt with by technical means, which is one of the solutions this disclosure addresses.
[0007] Accordingly, some example embodiments may enable the provision of technical means by which to give customers the ability to plan a future purchase and obtain loan terms and approval for a financing program (or loan) in advance. Thereafter, when a transaction occurs that can be correlated to the loan, processing is automatically initiated to map the transaction to the loan and pay the merchant. Such power may enable customers to have access to credit with confidence and convenience via an instrument such as a debit card (or credit card) whether virtual or physical.
[0022] Within this context, a transaction is considered "settled" when all parties involved in the transaction have received any payments or funds that may be owed to them. Thus, if cash is paid to the merchant by the customer, the transaction is immediately settled. For a credit card purchase, the transaction may be settled when the merchant has received funds from a bank associated with the credit card, and the customer has paid the bank accordingly so that the bank has also received the funds it advanced on behalf of the customer to the merchant. For a debit card purchase, the transaction may be settled when the merchant has received funds from a bank associated with the debit card, and the bank has debited the customer's account accordingly so that the bank has also received the funds it advanced on behalf of the customer to the merchant.
[0059] FIG. 5 illustrates a block diagram of some of the operations that the transaction management module 160 may further be configured to perform in association with an example embodiment. In this regard, as shown at operation 400, the transaction management module 160 may receive an estimate from the customer of a purchase amount (e.g., an estimated purchase amount) corresponding to the future purchase. The estimated purchase amount may be accompanied with merchant identity information (e.g., a name of the merchant) in order to make the future purchase recognizable in the future. Operation 410 therefore shows the receipt of the merchant identity information. Loan terms associated with a financing option may then be presented to the customer at operation 420. A determination may then be made as to whether loan terms are agreed upon (for the estimated purchase amount and the identified merchant) at operation 430. If loan terms are not agreed upon at operation 430, then the loan terms may be modified at operation 440, thereby cycling flow back to operation 420 after some modification or options selection to make the financing option acceptable to the customer. Whether immediately, or after such modification as that associated with operation 440, when the customer agrees to loan terms at operation 430, flow may pass to operation 450. At operation 450, the financing option details that have been agreed upon may be recorded (or stored) in association with the merchant identity information. The agreed upon loan amount and a purchase window defining a time during which the loan may be obtained (and therefore a time during which the future purchase must be executed) may then be presented to the customer at operation 460 (e.g., by instruction for display of such information at the client 20) with or without additional information (e.g., the merchant identity information).
[0060] All of the activities of FIG. 5 may occur at any time within the time window prior to a subsequent transaction occurring involving a card (e.g., a physical or virtual debit card) associated with the customer. The card may be a card on file or recorded in association with the corresponding one of the user accounts 152 of the customer. However, to this point, no funds (i.e., no money) has moved between any of the entities of FIG. 1. Instead, funds may only be reserved for funding the loan defined by the financing option selected or the agreed upon loan terms.
[0061] A length of the purchase window may be selected by the transaction management module 160 based on numerous factors. In some embodiments, the length of the purchase window may be consistent for any customer or merchant. In this regard, for example, the length of the purchase window may be selected based on fraud rules that are consistent across all merchants and customers. However, in some cases, the fraud rules or other criteria that are used to define the length of the purchase window may enable lengths to be increased on a customer-by-customer basis based on usage or creditworthiness (e.g., credit rating). Criteria may also vary across merchants, as some merchants may provide funding, or have relationships established with the facilitator, to increase the length of the purchase window. Thus, for example, the length of the purchase window may be fixed, or may vary based on the customer or merchant. When the transaction occurs, continued operation of the transaction management module 160 may occur as described in reference to FIG. 6.
[0062] FIG. 6 is a block diagram of control flow associated with handling of a transaction in accordance with an example embodiment. Notably, FIG. 6 may therefore be similar in some respects to the control flow of FIG. 4 except that FIG. 6 deals with the further unique case of the transaction being a future purchase that was previously identified by the customer, and for which loan terms have already been agreed upon.
[0063] Thus, for example, the initial operation of the customer attempting to initiate a transaction with a merchant may occur at operation 500. The customer may physically present the card (e.g., similar to presentation of a debit card or credit card via swipe or tap), use a digital card, or may provide card number information if the card is not physically present. Thereafter, the facilitation agent 44 may conduct a status check to determine eligibility of the transaction within a predetermined period of time (e.g., about 3 seconds) at operation 510 (similar to operation 310 above). If the status check passes the facilitation agent 44 may validate the transaction and the merchant may receive an indication that the transaction has been approved at operation 520. Funds do not yet move with this validation. If instead, the status check does not pass , then the facilitation agent 44 may deny the transaction and the merchant may receive an indication that the transaction has been denied at operation 530. The customer may also receive (e.g., via the client application 22) a push message to indicate that the transaction was denied at operation 540.
[0064] If validated at operation 520, a determination may be made as to whether the transaction can be mapped to a previously identified future purchase at operation 550. The facilitation agent 44 may use a collection of rules or criteria for mapping including minimum (or maximum) transaction values, rules regarding presence of the card, and various other identity or transaction specific rules. For example, determining that the transaction maps to the previously identified future purchase may be accomplished by matching transaction amount and merchant identity criteria. Whether transaction amount criteria are met may be determined by comparing an amount of the transaction to the estimated purchase amount. Whether merchant identity criteria are met may be determined by comparing a current merchant identified by the customer to the merchant identity information stored by the facilitation agent 44.
[0065] In some example embodiments, the estimated purchase amount must be within a predetermined dollar value, or a predetermined percentage value of the estimated purchase amount to meet the transaction amount criteria. Thus, for example, if the predetermined dollar value is $50, then for the estimated purchase amount was $400, the amount of the transaction must be between $350 to $450 to meet the transaction amount criteria. However, if the predetermined percentage value was instead used and was 10%, then the amount of the transaction must be between $360 and $440 to meet the transaction amount criteria. In some example embodiments, the location of the customer (or entity (e.g., merchant) identified with the transaction) must be within a predetermined distance of a location (e.g., latitude/longitude) of the merchant associated with the merchant identity information in order to meet the merchant identity criteria. Alternatively or additionally, a name of the merchant may match the merchant identity information in order to meet the merchant identity criteria.
[0066] If either or both the merchant identity criteria and the transaction amount criteria are not met, the transaction may not be considered to map to a prior future purchase. In such a case, the transaction will remain a debit transaction post swipe. Thus, for example, the merchant may put an authorized hold on funds associated with the amount of the transaction at the authenticating bank and, when the transaction is settled, funds may flow from a bank associated with the facilitator) at operation 560. The customer may also receive (e.g., via the client application 22) a push message to indicate that the transaction was approved and processed as a debit transaction at operation 570.
[0067] When both the merchant identity criteria and the transaction amount criteria are met, the transaction may be considered to map to a prior future purchase. In such a case, no funds initially move to support the transaction at the time thereof. Instead, when the merchant submits the transaction for settlement with the facilitator, the facilitator initiates a flow of funds from a bank associated with the facilitator (e.g., the issuing bank) and the loan to which the transaction mapped is originated at operation 580. The customer need not have any awareness to these activities. Instead, after the loan is originated, the transaction information may be used to update the account status of the customer and, for example, if the customer logs into his/her user account, the customer may see an update reflecting the loan originated by the transaction at operation 590. The transaction itself, and the corresponding loan details may be displayed at the client 20. The loan details may include, among other things, an indication of when the next payment is due on the loan. The payment may then be extracted automatically or manually on the schedule defined in the loan details.
The rejection is maintained.
Issue#2
The specification of the '831 application teaches a solution to the above noted problem by defining a specific arrangement of screen displays for extracting information from the user and providing information to the user in the context of balancing the amount of information exchange with the need for accuracy in matching transactions to loans. More particularly, independent claims I and 11 of the '831 application define, in their claim elements, a particular information extraction and display paradigm that is aimed at optimally solving the problem noted above, In this regard, independent claims I and 11 recite, inter alía, electronically communicating instructions to the communication device to generate a display of loan terms at the communication device via one or more messages sent to the communication device, responsive to the customer agreeing to terms on a selected financing option based on input received at the communication device. storing the selected financing option in association with the estimated purchase amount and the merchant identity information without originating any loan corresponding to the selected financing option, responsive to receiving an indication of a transaction between the customer and a merchant. comparing the stored estimated purchase amount and the merchant identity information associated with the selected financing option to an amount of the transaction and an identity of the merchant to determine whether the transaction maps to the defined future purchase. and originating a loan to finance the transaction in accordance with the selected financing option in response to the transaction mapping to the defined future purchase. Importantly, the user is also notified that a variable window exists during which this paradigm will be used for such mapping by adding providing an indication of a purchase window to the customer and clarifying that the purchase window is variable based on both an indication of creditworthiness of the customer and on a prior relationship with the merchant. These claim features outline an information exchange paradigm for obtaining information needed to accurately map transactions to pre-approved loans accurately and in time to make the user experience comfortable during a transaction that is the focus of the claim. The information exchange paradigm defines a relatively simple series of steps that the customer can follow to get the loan pre-approved, with accuracy for risk avoidance accounted for within the paradigm to create the desired balance of simplicity without increasing risk. In my opinion, this information exchange paradigm, although including individual steps that may be argued to each be unremarkable in their own right, is itself unconventional in its combination since it defines a combination of operations that successfully balance simplicity of execution without increasing risk and further without any predictable or routine outcome from the otherwise expected result of combining simple steps. This combination of steps solves the problem the inventors were aimed at solving via a specific application that is, in my opinion, a practical application under the Alice framework at least because it does not merely "apply if to general instructions, but instead includes additional elements in combination that define an information exchange paradigm that is a technical solution to a technical problem of providing a fast decision that, in spite of its speed, is nevertheless both accurate and well informed.
Examiner Response
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The limitations (communicating instructions to generate loan terms, responsive to the customer agreeing to terms on a selected financing option based on input received; storing the selected financing option in association with the estimated purchase amount and the merchant identity information without originating any loan corresponding to the selected financing option, responsive to receiving an indication of a transaction between the customer and a merchant, comparing the stored estimated purchase amount and the merchant identity information associated with the selected financing option to an amount of the transaction and an identity of the merchant to determine whether the transaction maps to the defined future purchase; and originating a loan to finance the transaction in accordance with the selected financing option in response to the transaction mapping to the defined future purchase; and originating a loan to finance the transaction in accordance with the selected financing option in response to the transaction mapping to the defined future purchase; and responsive to the origination of the loan, providing instructions to display a payment schedule, wherein providing the loan terms further comprises providing an indication of a purchase window to the customer, and wherein the purchase window is variable based on both an indication of creditworthiness of the customer and on a prior relationship with the merchant) is part of the identified abstract idea.
The additional elements in the claim, outside of the abstract idea (the communication device, display) is recited at high level of generality, operating in their ordinary capacity, and are being used as a tool to implement the steps of the identified abstract idea.
Therefore in the instant invention, there is no technical problem, and there is no technical solution being provided.
Applicant’s claims do not improve technology; the underlying technology remains unaffected by the claims. Applicant is addressing a business problem (steps for processing a transaction between a merchant and a customer) with a business solution. Applicant is merely using existing technology (for its intended purpose) to implement the business solution. Any improvements lie in the abstract idea itself, not in underlying technology
The rejection is maintained.
Issue#3
11. Turning back to point 7 above, it is my opinion that the claims of the '831 application do more than merely "apply if in relation to the combination of operations outlined in the information exchange paradigm defined. In this regard, although each individual provision of information operations considered in isolation may be argued to merely be an application of a mere instruction, the combination of operations is more than mere instructions to apply an exception under MPEP 2106.05(f). In this regard, it is noteworthy that the information exchange paradigm, and its ultimate usage, does not merely recite the idea of a solution, but instead recites the specific steps that achieve the solution while maintaining a balance of simplicity and risk. There is no specific mention of this result in claims I and 11, and therefore then also no possibility of merely defining a result-oriented solution without details regarding how the solution is achieved. To the contrary, the result is not called out, but is only appreciated as the specific result of the unique combination of steps in the order defined, Additionally, claims 1 and 11 do not appear to merely invoke computers or other machinery as a tool to perform an existing process. A new process is defined for an efficient way to get information that can be used to accurately map transactions to loans within a predetermined time window and with speeds that are required for the particular context involved, with the interaction of components being specifically governed by the defined steps being defined in order to create a new process that is different from any existing process known at the time. Finally, it is noteworthy that the claims at issue do not have broad applicability across many fields of endeavor. Instead, as noted above, the combination of steps defined in the above-underlined passage of claims 1 and 11 defines a new process to balance simplicity and risk in one narrow field of endeavor (obtaining a loan in advance of conducting the transaction to which the loan applies). It is also noteworthy that the passages at issue are clearly not insignificant extra- solution activity, but instead are the focus and heart of the solution itself. The information exchange paradigm is therefore specifically defined in relation to how it is executed in ways that clearly extend beyond merely applying a computer as a tool, but instead configuring customer devices in a particular way to solve a problem that extends beyond merely linking the customer device to a financial transaction context. The unique combination of tool and information exchange protocol embodied by that which is claimed in the '831 application defines a new functionality in a specifically defined and structured context that is not fairly construed as a generic computing technology. As such, it is my opinion that the claims of the '831 application integrate any alleged judicial exception into a practical application.
Examiner Response
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
This issue has been addressed above, with respect to Examiner Response to issue#1-2 above.
Issue#4
12. Turning back to point 8 above, it is my opinion that the claims of the '831 application also amount to significantly more than any alleged abstract idea, Instead, similar to the analysis noted above, the information exchange paradigm itself is defined with specificity in relation to how it is executed in its operating environment to balance simplicity of execution with the risk increase associated with simply making fast and uninformed decisions. The information exchange paradigm, its usage, and the timing limitations involved, are also specifically defined in relation to how it is operates in ways that are not conventional. More particularly, it is noteworthy that the information exchange paradigm includes specific displays that involve specific configuration and interaction of the parties involved that are additional elements that are significantly more than any abstract idea since, even though each display element, message exchanged, and information obtained by itself may be unremarkable, it is the combination of the devices and their interaction through the message structure defined that results in a multi-actor information exchange and execution process that provides enhanced accuracy in loan matching while retaining relative simplicity.
13. It is my opinion that it is specifically by following the prescribed structure and exchange of messages defined by claims I and 11 of the '831 application that the desired outcomes are achieved, and those prescribed improvements are also recited in the claims of the *831 application. Thus, the improvements described and taught in the '831 application have direct connection to that which is claimed, and that which makes the claims novel and inventive as well as being patent eligible is therefore clearly provided therein.
Examiner Response
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Specification paras 26,67 are reproduced below:
[0026] Each one of the clients 20 may include one or more instances of a communication device such as, for example, a computing device (e.g., a computer, a server, a network access terminal, a personal digital assistant (PDA), radio equipment, cellular phone, smart phone, or the like) capable of communication with a network 30. As such, for example, each one of the clients 20 may include (or otherwise have access to) memory for storing instructions or applications for the performance of various functions and a corresponding processor for executing stored instructions or applications. Each one of the clients 20 may also include software and/or corresponding hardware for enabling the performance of the respective functions of the clients 20 as described below. In an example embodiment, the clients 20 may include or be capable of executing a client application 22 configured to operate in accordance with an example embodiment of the present invention. In this regard, for example, the client application 22 may include software for enabling a respective one of the clients 20 to communicate with the network 30 for requesting and/or receiving information and/or services via the network 30 as described herein. The information or services receivable at the client applications 22 may include deliverable components (e.g., downloadable software to configure the clients 20, or information for consumption/processing at the clients 20). As such, for example, the client application 22 may include corresponding executable instructions for configuring the client 20 to provide corresponding functionalities for sharing, processing and/or utilizing financial data as described in greater detail below.
[0067] When both the merchant identity criteria and the transaction amount criteria are met, the transaction may be considered to map to a prior future purchase. In such a case, no funds initially move to support the transaction at the time thereof. Instead, when the merchant submits the transaction for settlement with the facilitator, the facilitator initiates a flow of funds from a bank associated with the facilitator (e.g., the issuing bank) and the loan to which the transaction mapped is originated at operation 580. The customer need not have any awareness to these activities. Instead, after the loan is originated, the transaction information may be used to update the account status of the customer and, for example, if the customer logs into his/her user account, the customer may see an update reflecting the loan originated by the transaction at operation 590. The transaction itself, and the corresponding loan details may be displayed at the client 20. The loan details may include, among other things, an indication of when the next payment is due on the loan. The payment may then be extracted automatically or manually on the schedule defined in the loan details.
There is no improvement to the technology of the display of the communication device (it is operating in exactly the same way it was designed to function, (functions of inputting and displaying data) and is being used as a tool to implement the steps of the identified abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f).
The limitations pertaining to the messages, ("providing instructions via one or more messages sent to the communication device" is generally linking the identified abstract to a particular technology (electronic messaging technology), see MPEP 2106.05(h).
As far as novelty is concerned:
Examiner would like to point out that, as made clear by the courts, the “novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter.” /Intellectual Ventures | v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188-89, 209 USPQ at 9). Furthermore, lack of novelty under 35 U.S.C. 102 or obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 of a claimed invention does not necessarily indicate that additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional elements. Because they are separate and distinct requirements from eligibility, patentability of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 with respect to the prior art is neither required for, nor a guarantee of, patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101. (MPEP 2106.05 (I))
Therefore there are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the identified abstract idea.
The rejection is maintained.
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
Applicant argues#1
Applicant respectfully submits that independent claims 1 and 11 integrate any alleged judicial exception into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2. In this regard, as indicated by the SMED of Dr. David Whitmire, the claimed invention integrates any alleged judicial exception into a practical application. In particular, Dr. Whitmire determined that the claims "do more than merely "apply it' in relation to the combination of operations outlined in the information exchange paradigm defined" (see SMED point 11). Dr. Whitmire further opined that the "information exchange paradigm is therefore specifically defined in relation to how it is executed in ways that clearly extend beyond merely applying a computer as a tool, but instead configuring customer devices in a particular way to solve a problem that extends beyond merely linking the customer device to a financial transaction context. The unique combination of tool and information exchange protocol embodied by that which is claimed in the '831 application defines a new functionality in a specifically defined and structured context that is not fairly construed as a generic computing technology" (see SMED point 11). Dr. Whitmire also opines that "the claims of the '831 application integrate any alleged judicial exception into a practical application" (see SMED point 11). Thus, Dr. Whitmire's expert testimony establishes evidence that independent claims 1 and 11 recite a practical application under Step 2A; Prong 2 of the eligibility analysis.
Examiner Response
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
This argument has been addressed above, see the Examiner Response to Issue#2.
The rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues#2
Applicant also respectfully submits that independent claims 1 and 11 amount to significantly more than any alleged abstract idea. In this regard, Dr. Whitmire noted that the "information exchange paradigm, its usage, and the timing limitations involved, are also specifically defined in relation to how it is operates in ways that are not conventional. More particularly, it is noteworthy that the information exchange paradigm includes specific displays that involve specific configuration and interaction of the parties involved that are additional elements that are significantly more than any abstract idea since, even though each display element, message exchanged, and information obtained by itself may be unremarkable, it is the combination of the devices and their interaction through the message structure defined that results in a multi- actor information exchange and execution process that provides enhanced accuracy in loan matching while retaining relative simplicity" (see SMED point 12). Thus, Dr. Whitmire's expert testimony establishes evidence that independent claims 1 and 11 define additional details that amount to significantly more than any abstract idea and should therefore be considered patent eligible on that basis as well under Step 2B of the eligibility analysis.
Examiner response
This argument has been addressed above, see the Examiner Response to Issue#4.
The rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues#3
Applicant further respectfully submits that there is a nexus between the invention as claimed, and the evidence provided by Dr. Whitmire. In this regard, Dr. Whitmire has opined as to how one of ordinary skill in the art would understand and appreciate that which is claimed in light of the teachings of the specification, and has provided evidence of technological improvement that would also be appreciated as such by those of skill in the art. Notably, Dr. Whitmire did not supplement any information not provided by the specification, and has demonstrated relevant expertise. Thus, Applicant respectfully submits that the testimony of Dr. Whitmire has substantial probative value as objective evidence of the eligibility of that which is claimed.
Based on the current state of the claims, and the evidence provided in the SMED of Dr. Whitmire, Applicant respectfully submits that independent claims 1 and 11 are eligible for patenting under the Patent Laws. Once independent claims 1 and 11 are appreciated to be patent eligible, dependent claims 2-6, 8-10, 12-16 and 18-20 should also be considered patent eligible. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that the rejections of claims 1-6, 8-16 and 18-20 on statutory grounds are overcome.
For all the reasons provided above, Applicant respectfully submits that claims 1-6, 8-16 and 18-20 are presently in condition for allowance.
Examiner Response
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
These arguments have been addressed above in the Examiner Response to Issues#1-4 above with the respect to the SMED of Dr. Whitmire.
The rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections- 35 U.S.C § 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.
6. Claims 1-6, 8-16, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims are either directed to an apparatus and a method, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Claim 1 recites the limitations of: An apparatus for processing a customer transaction, the apparatus comprising processing circuitry configured to:
receive an electronic communication defining an estimated purchase amount and merchant identity information defining a future purchase from a customer responsive to the customer inputting the estimated purchase amount and the merchant identity information at a communication device of the customer;
electronically communicate instructions to the communication device to generate a display of loan terms at the communication device via one or more messages sent to the communication device, the loan terms defining associated with one or more financing options corresponding to the defined future purchase;
receive feedback from the customer via a user input at the communication device to define a selected financing option from among the one or more financing options;
provide instructions to display the selected financing option for review and acceptance at the communication device;
responsive to the customer agreeing to terms on a selected financing option based on input received at the communication device, store the selected financing option in association with the estimated purchase amount and the merchant identity information without originating any loan corresponding to the selected financing option;
responsive to receiving an indication of a transaction between the customer and a merchant, compare the stored estimated purchase amount and the merchant identity information associated with the selected financing option to an amount of the transaction and an identity of the merchant to determine whether the transaction maps to the defined future purchase; and
originate a loan to finance the transaction in accordance with the selected financing option in response to the transaction mapping to the defined future purchase; and
responsive to the origination of the loan, provide instructions to display a payment schedule at the communication device;
wherein providing the loan terms further comprises providing an indication of a purchase window to the customer, and
wherein the purchase window is variable based on both an indication of creditworthiness of the customer and on a prior relationship with the merchant.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. The claim recites elements that are in bold above, which covers performance of the limitation as a commercial interaction (steps for processing a transaction between a merchant and a customer), (e.g., receive an communication defining an estimated purchase amount and merchant identity information defining a future purchase from a customer responsive to the customer inputting the estimated purchase amount and the merchant identity information; communicate instructions to generate loan terms, the loan terms defining associated with one or more financing options corresponding to the defined future purchase; receive feedback from the customer via a user input to define a selected financing option from among the one or more financing options; provide instructions to display the selected financing option for review and acceptance; responsive to the customer agreeing to terms on a selected financing option based on input received, store the selected financing option in association with the estimated purchase amount and the merchant identity information without originating any loan corresponding to the selected financing option; responsive to receiving an indication of a transaction between the customer and a merchant, compare the stored estimated purchase amount and the merchant identity information associated with the selected financing option to an amount of the transaction and an identity of the merchant to determine whether the transaction maps to the defined future purchase; and originate a loan to finance the transaction in accordance with the selected financing option in response to the transaction mapping to the defined future purchase; and responsive to the origination of the loan, provide instructions to display a payment schedule; wherein providing the loan terms further comprises providing an indication of a purchase window to the customer, and wherein the purchase window is variable based on both an indication of creditworthiness of the customer and on a prior relationship with the merchant)
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a commercial interaction then it falls within the "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Claim 11 is abstract for similar reasons.
(Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application include: (1) Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05.f), (2) Adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05.g), (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05.h).
Claim 1 includes the following additional elements:
-An apparatus comprising processing circuitry.
-display
-A communication device
-electronically communicate instructions via one or more messages sent to the communication device
The limitation, "electronically communicate instructions via one or more messages sent to the communication device" is generally linking the identified abstract to a particular technology (messaging of data using a communication device), see MPEP 2106.05(h). The apparatus comprising processing circuitry, the display and the communication device are recited at a high level of generality and being used in its ordinary capacity and are being used as a tool for implementing the steps of the identified abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f), where applying a computer or using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea is not indicative of a practical application.
Therefore there are no additional elements in the claim that amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Therefore claim 1,11 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an "inventive concept") to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of
the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using computer hardware amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, with the use of generic computer components, cannot provide an inventive concept - rendering the claim patent ineligible. Thus claim 1,11 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims 2-6, 8-10, 12-16, 18-20 which further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1&11 and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims 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, the dependent claims 2-6, 8-10, 12-16, 18-20 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, claims 1-6, 8-16, 18-20 are not patent-eligible.
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD Z SHAIKH whose telephone number is (571)270-3444. The examiner can normally be reached M-T, 9-600; Fri, 8-11, 3-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, BENNETT SIGMOND can be reached at 303-297-4411. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOHAMMAD Z SHAIKH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694 6/9/2026
Prosecution Insights