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.
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).
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 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”).
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.
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 (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”).
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 (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).
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 toe Remarks
Claim objection and rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 are withdrawn in response to Applicant’s amendment.
Claim Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101
Applicant's arguments filed on 12/13/2024 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued that independent claim 1 and 11 have been amended to recite that “the financing offer is provided in a message formulated in a real time responsive to the user placing the first and second items in the online cart and set to the user with respect to financing a transaction including both the first and second items” and “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 part behavior of the user”. Applicant argued that these additional features “direct the claims away from the abstract idea of merely managing a commercial agreement and instead to the technical arena of employing machine learning to intelligently control real time message formulation for the communication that is conducted in conjunction with such an agreement. Examiner disagrees and points out that the independent claims, as amended, are still directed to providing item-level financing offers in relation of a loan to a user for an online cart including two items by applying existing machine learning technology to analyze user behavioral data. The amended claims do not improve machine learning technology. Rather, they merely apply known machine learning technology in a highly generic fashion. Using user’s behavioral data to determine financial offer structure still falls within Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping. Moreover, the present claims still follow the fact patter of Electric Power Group v. Alstom, because the claims recite a process of obtaining data, analyzing data (i.e., item data and user behavioral data), and providing result of the analysis (i.e., offer structure). As such, the present still fall within Mental Processes grouping. Furthermore, performing calculations in real time to provide offer message does not improve computer function, because this feature is a basic computer function. Therefore, the amended claims are still directed to an abstract concept.
Applicant also argued that the amended claims are integrated into practical application that imposes meaningful limits on the arena. Applicant argued that the “claims are not merely recited at high level of generality, but specifically indicate a technical tool (i.e., machine learning) that specifically solves a technical problem (e.g., choosing the form and structure of messaging used to communicate with customers) in a particular way. Examiner disagrees and points out that the “structure” here is not a specific data structure, but merely the terms of offers and the number of offers being provided (see paragraph 0057 and 0090 of the specification). The term “structure” here is different from the “structure” in Enfish. It is not related to how data is being stored. As discussed earlier, merely applying machine learning (which is a well-known technology) to process user behavior data is not improving machine learning itself. Providing personalized offers to user is merely performing calculations according to predetermined offer formula and outputting results. These features do no integrate an abstract concept into a practical application.
Applicant attempted to make analogy between the amended claims and claims Core Wireless v. LG. Examiner points out that the amended claims are not directed to an improved graphical user interface like in the case of Core Wireless v. LG. In Core Wireless v. LG, the invention provides a GUI specifically for mobile device with small display which allows user to access data within apps in an unlaunched state. By doing so, computer resource consumption is reduced (since the device does not need to launch apps to obtain the data). On the other hand, the amended claims are merely analyzing user behavioral data to provide personalized financing offers to user. The amended claims are not related at all to improvement in GUI technology.
Applicant also attempted to make analogy between the amended claims and claims in DDR Holding v. Hotels.com. Examiner points out that the present claims not directed to specific technology solution to solve a problem rooted in computer technology. Machine learning is recited in high level of generality. The amended claims do not disclose how data is being processed and how the claimed machine learning is different from conventional machine learning. Providing personalized financial offers is also not a problem rooted in computer technology.
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. Examiner maintains the ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant amended independent claims 1 and 11. Applicant argued that the cited prior art, Simon (Patent No.: US 10,417,706), does not teach “the financing offer is provided 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”. Examiner disagrees and points to the following passages of Simon:
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
With regards to the amended feature “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 behaviors of the user”, Examiner cites a new prior art, Dagley et al. (Pub. No.: US 2020/0334694). Examiner also points out that Hum et al. (Pub. No.: US 2023/0097322), which has the same assignee but different inventors, teach exactly the same limitation. Updated rejection is provided in this Office Action.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications 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 3697
SEPT-2024
Prosecution Insights