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 .
This application has PRO 63/252,826 10/06/2021
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and rejected.
Claim Rejection – 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The rationale for this finding is explained below. In the instant case, the claims are directed towards providing item-level financing offers in relation of a loan to a user for an online cart including two items. The concept is clearly related to managing commercial agreement (loan) and managing transactions between people (consumer and lender), thus the present claims fall within the Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity grouping. Moreover, the present claims can be performed in the human mind, thus the present claims also fall within the Mental Processes grouping. The claims do not include limitations that are “significantly more” than the abstract idea because the claims do not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Note that the limitations, in the instant claims, are done by the generically recited computer device. The limitations are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry. Therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1: The claims 1-20 are directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition matter.
In Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Intern., 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014), the Supreme Court applied a two-step test for determining whether a claim recites patentable subject matter. First, we determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one or more patent-ineligible concepts, i.e., laws of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract ideas. Id. at 2355 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1296–96 (2012)). If so, we then consider whether the elements of each claim, both individually and as an ordered combination, transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the ineligible concept itself.
Claims 1-10 are directed to a process (i.e., method claims).
Claims 11-20 are directed to a manufacture (i.e., apparatus claims).
Step 2A: The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Prong One
The present claims are directed towards providing item-level financing offers in relation of a loan to a user for an online cart including two items. The steps in claim 1, for example, include receiving information identifying a first item and a second item in an online cart, performing a first credit extension decision for the first item and a second credit extension decision for the second item, and providing a financing offer including both the first and second items. The concept is clearly related to managing commercial agreement (loan) and managing transactions between people (consumer and lender), thus the present claims fall within the Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity grouping. Moreover, the present claims can be performed in the human mind, thus the present claims also fall within the Mental Processes grouping. Accordingly, this claim recites an abstract idea.
Prong Two
Claim 1-10 do not clearly recite any computer or hardware element. The claims mention about online cart, but it is not clear what or who actually performed the claimed steps. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, all the steps (i.e., receiving information about first and second items, deciding credit extension for the items, and providing financing offer for the items) can be entirely performed in the human mind. Claim 11-20 are apparatus claims but only recite a “processing circuitry” in the preamble of claim 11 as additional element for performing the same steps as in claims 1-10. Even if all the steps are performed by a circuitry or a computer, the additional element merely performs basic computer function, such as receiving information, making decision (i.e., performing calculations), and providing offers (i.e., transmitting or displaying offer information). According to MPEP 2106.05(d), “performing repetitive calculations”, “receiving, processing, and storing data”, “electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document”, “electronic recordkeeping”, “storing and retrieving information in memory”, and “receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data” are well-known basic computer functions. The recitation of the circuitry amounts to mere instruction to implement an abstract concept on computer. The present claims do not solve a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks. Rather, the present claims implement an abstract concept using existing computer technology in a networked computer environment. The present claims do not recite limitation that improve the functioning of computer, effect a physical transformation, or apply the abstract concept in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract concept to a particular technological environment. As such, the present claims fail to integrate into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As discussed earlier, claims 1-10 do not recite any additional element. Claims 11-20 only recite a processing circuitry in the preamble of claim 11. Even if all the steps are performed by a circuitry or a computer, the additional element merely performs basic computer function, such as receiving information, making decision (i.e., performing calculations), and providing offers (i.e., transmitting or displaying offer information). According to MPEP 2106.05(d), “performing repetitive calculations”, “receiving, processing, and storing data”, “electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document”, “electronic recordkeeping”, “storing and retrieving information in memory”, and “receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data” are considered well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of computer. The present claims do not improve the functioning of computer technology. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer or using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Therefore, the present claims are ineligible for patent.
Claim Rejection – 35 U.S.C. 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 7-11, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simon (Patent No.: US 10,417,706), in view of Dagley et al. (Pub. No.: US 2020/0334694) and Busch et al. (Pub. No.: US 2006/0247987).
As per claim 1 and 11, Simon teaches a method for employing item-level financing offers in relation to extension of a loan to a user for an online cart including multiple items, the method comprising:
receiving information identifying a first item placed by the user in the online cart (see col 2 line 53-67, “Context information may be related to the item or items in scope currently presented on the online store UI…the context information can be the product being marketed on a product details page, its price and stock keeping unit (SKU) number…The context information may also related to the user’s shopping session, such as products in the user’s electronic shopping cart”; see col 8 line 1-14, “The loan request may include the consumer’s personal information and information about the one or more items that the consumer intends to purchase with the loan”; also see col 10 line 38-60, col 12 line 29-48 and col 15 line 12-46);
receiving information identifying a second item place by the user in the online cart (see col 2 line 53-67, “Context information may be related to the item or items in scope currently presented on the online store UI…the context information can be the product being marketed on a product details page, its price and stock keeping unit (SKU) number…The context information may also related to the user’s shopping session, such as products in the user’s electronic shopping cart”; see col 8 line 1-14, “The loan request may include the consumer’s personal information and information about the one or more items that the consumer intends to purchase with the loan”; see col 10 line 38-60, “receiving the context information, loan provider server 116 may determine information to be presented…In response to the consumer switching to other content displaying another piece of merchandise, loan provider server 116 may receive updated context information about the current content presented on the user device 106 and recalculate the monthly payment based on the updated context information”; also see col 12 line 29-48 and col 15 line 12-46);
performing a first credit extension decision with respect to the first item (see col 3 line 1-30, “In real time, the loan provider…may a loan decision in a real time (e.g., (in seconds). The decision may determine whether, at what interest rate, and for what dollar amount the loan provider can underwrite the loan for this consumer’s purchase”; see col 8 line 1-52, “The loan provider server 116 may transmit the loan request to a loan decision engine 118 which may determine whether the consumer can receive the loan and on what terms the loan can be based”);
performing a second credit extension decision with respect to the second item (see col 3 line 1-30, “In real time, the loan provider…may a loan decision in a real time (e.g., (in seconds). The decision may determine whether, at what interest rate, and for what dollar amount the loan provider can underwrite the loan for this consumer’s purchase”; see col 8 line 1-52, “The loan provider server 116 may transmit the loan request to a loan decision engine 118 which may determine whether the consumer can receive the loan and on what terms the loan can be based”; see col 10 line 38-60, “In response to the consumer switching to other content displaying another piece of merchandise, loan provider server 116 may receive updated context information about the current content presented on the user device 106 and recalculate the monthly payment based on the updated context information”); and
providing, based on the first and second credit extension decisions, a financing offer in a message formulated in real time responsive to the user placing the first and second items in the online cart and sent to the user with respect to financing a transaction including both the first and second items (see col 4 line 46-64, “These pages may be static pages or dynamically-generated pages…The visual icon associated with the embedded component may be presented on different stages of the online shopping while the message displayed on the visual icon may change based on the context information…if the visual icon is placed on a product detail page, the monthly payment presented is based on a loan to purchase all items in the car on the checkout page”; see col 15 line 12-46, “If the consumer adds multiple items and proceeds through the merchant’s standard shopping cart, the visual icon can show dollars per month for the entire shopping cart”; see col 6 line 66 through col 7 line 31, “the visual icon may be displayed as a button indicating an installment payment option…the visual icon may include a message that is context-aware in the sense that the visual icon may present a message adaptively based on what content the consumer is currently viewing…The loan provider 116 may determine the information to be presented on the visual icon based on the context information and supply the message to be presented to embedded component 114”; also see claim 7),
wherein the financing offer includes a simultaneous display of item-level information regarding details of the first and second credit extension decisions (see col 4 line 46-64, “the monthly payment presented is based on a loan to purchase all items in the car on the checkout page”; see col 10 line 38-60, also see claim 7, “wherein the context information comprises price information associated with a plurality of merchandise items presented in a shopping cart of the online store UI, and wherein the message comprises an installment payment amount and a number of installment payment relating to the loan for paying off a total price for the plurality of merchandise items, wherein the plurality of merchandise items comprises the merchandise item”; see claim 8, “the update is generated in response to a modification to the content provided by the online store server…the second message comprises a second installment payment amount and a second number of second installment payments relating to the loan for paying for a second merchandise item presented”; Examiner also points out that displaying information from different decisions in a single page would have been an obvious modification).
Examiner notes Simon does not teach wherein the message has a form and structure determined based on machine learning applied to a plurality of other user transactions associated with the first and second items and also past behavior of the user to define the form and structure to include a preferred term and pace of repayment of the user based on the past behavior of the user.
Dagley teaches wherein the message has a form and structure determined based on machine learning applied to a plurality of other user transactions associated with the first and second items and also past behavior of the user to define the form and structure to include a preferred term and pace of repayment of the user based on the past behavior of the user (see paragraph 0002, “determining one or more financing preferences for a user of the user device based on the one or more values specified in the one or more interactions, wherein the one or more financing preferences are determined based on a second data model that has been trained using one or more machine learning techniques based on behavior data derived from the one or more interactions…wherein the information related to the probability includes one or more recommendations for structuring the proposed offer”; see paragraph 0017, 0022, 0026, “the behavioral analytics platform may have visibility into the various values that the user provides to the obtain the financing preference of the user”; also see paragraph 0029, 0048).
Alternatively, Hum et al. (Pub. No.: US 2023/0097322) also teaches wherein the message has a form and structure determined based on machine learning applied to a plurality of other user transactions associated with the first and second items and also past behavior of the user to define the form and structure to include a preferred term and pace of repayment of the user based on the past behavior of the user (see paragraph 0076, “Machine learning may also (e.g., based on past knowledge of user behavior or tendencies) provide a structure and form for financing offers that are targeted to the user”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify Simon with teaching from Dagley to include wherein the message has a form and structure determined based on machine learning applied to a plurality of other user transactions associated with the first and second items and also past behavior of the user. The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e., applying machine learning technique on prior behavior data to structure financial offers) to a known method (i.e., providing financing offers to products in online shopping cart) ready to provide predictable result (i.e., increase the likelihood that the user will engage the offer).
Examiner further notes the combination of Simon and Dagley does not teach wherein the financial offer includes a toggle displayed to enable the user to select between different aggregation methods associated with aggregating loan terms associated with each of the first and second credit extension decisions. The meaning of the limitation according to paragraph 0059 of the specification is that “the customer 21 may be enabled to toggle between different aggregation methods (e.g., blending into a single loan, or summing individually item level distinct loans) to select a preferred option (or options)”. With this definition in mind, Examiner cites Busch et al.
Busch teaches wherein the financial offer includes a toggle displayed to enable the user to select between different aggregation methods associated with aggregating loan terms associated with each of the first and second credit extension decisions (see paragraph 0052, “A ‘Debt Consolidation Calculator’ button 50 (FIG. 4A) is clicked on to arrive at a Debt Consolidation Summary screen 52, shown in FIG. 12…the debt consolidation calculator 52 uses weighted averages to show a user that a number of individual loans, with different remaining balances, interest rates and maturities, and therefore different payments, could be consolidated at a single interest rate and a single payment over an amortization period that blends all the individual loan amortization periods”; the debt consolidation calculator button is essentially a toggle button that shows the terms of individual loans vs. a consolidated loan; Examiner also points out that toggle GUI element is a well-known and built-in function of most OS).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify the combination of Simon and Dagley with teaching from Busch to include a toggle displayed to enable the user to select between different aggregation methods associated with aggregating loan terms associated with each of the first and second credit extension decisions. The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e., displaying terms of individual loans vs. consolidated loan) to a known method (i.e., providing financing offers to products in online shopping cart) ready to provide predictable result (i.e., allow user to compare loan options).
As per claim 7 and 17, Simon teaches wherein the item-level information regarding details of the first and second credit extension decisions includes a listing of a price of each of the first and second items and a financing message indicating a potential monthly payment associated with buy now, pay later financing of each individual one of the first and second items (see col 15 line 12-46, “If the consumer adds multiple items and proceeds through the merchant’s standard shopping cart, the visual icon can show dollars per month for the entire shopping cart”; also see claim 7).
As per claim 8 and 18, Simon teaches wherein the item-level information regarding details of the first and second credit extension decisions includes first and second financing selectors for each of the first and second items, the first financing selector corresponding to buy now, pay later financing and the second financing selector corresponding to immediate payment by credit or debit card (see col 1 line 23-40).
As per claim 9 and 19, Simon teaches presenting, for the first item, a related item along with information associated with financing the related item (see claim 7).
As per claim 10 and 20, Simon teaches receiving a request to return one of the first item or the second item to a corresponding merchant from which the first item or the second item was purchased and recalculating an interest rate applied to the transaction based on the return of the one of the first item or the second item (see col 10 line 38-60, financing terms are dynamically updated based on the items in the shopping cart).
Examiner notes Simon does not teach wherein the first credit extension decision is performed with respect to a first financed amount and a first interest rate for financing the first item, wherein the second credit extension decision is performed with respect to a second financed amount and a second interest rate for financing the second item, and wherein at least the first and second interest rates are different from each other, as recited in claim 2 and 12. Claims 3-6 and 13-16 depend on claims 2 and 12. Examiner cannot find relevant prior arts for this feature. Examiner has also reviewed the prior arts cited in the European Search Report and Canadian Search Report, but does not believe those prior arts accurately address the claimed limitations in claims 2-6 and 12-16. Therefore, no prior art rejected is cited for claims 2-6 and 12-16.
However, claims 2-6 and 12-16 only represent novelty in the abstract concept of providing different interest rate for each item in a shopping cart. This novelty is entirely in the realm of abstract concept, and it does not improve computer function. Moreover, the present claims do not even require a computer to perform. Therefore, claims 2-6 and 12-16 are still ineligible for patent under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Response to Remarks
Claim Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101
Applicant's arguments filed on 07/28/2026 with regards to rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued that the amended feature – “a toggle displayed to enable the user to select between different aggregation methods associated with aggregating loan terms associated with each of the first and second credit extension decisions” - is an unconventional feature. This feature is only disclosed once in a single sentence in the specification - “the customer 21 may be enabled to toggle between different aggregation methods (e.g., blending into a single loan, or summing individually item level distinct loans) to select a preferred option (or options)” (see paragraph 0059). Examiner points out a toggle switch a well-known and conventional graphical user interface element “that lets user switch instantly between two opposite states, like on and off”. The specification does not provide any detail with regards to this feature, clearly suggesting this feature was not novel or require any explanation to one skilled in the art. The specification also does not say the toggle element is an improvement in GUI. Displaying loan terms of individual loans vs. a consolidated loan also does not improve computer function. Arranging transactional information on a graphical user interface in a manner that assists traders in processing information more quickly, Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019) is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality. Similarly, arranging loan information on a graphical user interface using well-known toggle element to assist consumers in processing loan information more quickly is not sufficient to show improvement in computer technology or integrate the abstract concept into practical application.
The amended claims do not improve the functioning of computer technology. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer or using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Therefore, the present claims are ineligible for patent. Examiner maintains the ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103
Examiner cites a new prior art, Busch et al. (Pub. No.: US 2006/0247987), to address the amended feature. Updated rejection is provided in this Office Action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAO FU whose telephone number is (571)270-3441. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 6:00 PM PST.
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, Christine Behncke can be reached on (571) 272-8103. 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.
/HAO FU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3695
AUG-2026
Prosecution Insights