DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Amendments filed on 07/21/2026.
Claims 18-20 are cancelled.
Claims 1-17 and 21-23 are rejected.
Claims 1-17 and 21-23 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment, filed 07/21/2026, has been entered. Claims 1 and 10 have been amended.
Objections to the Claims
Some of the Objections to the Claims have been withdrawn pursuant Applicant’s amendments. Some of the Objections to the Claims have been maintained as detailed in the Objections to the Claims below.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-17 and 21-23 are objected to because of the following informalities:
-Claims 1 and 10 read “within the same self-checkout workflow” but should likely read “within a same self-checkout workflow”
Claim 2-9 and 11-17 inherits the deficiencies noted in claims 1 and 10, respectively, and are therefore objected to the same basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-17 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes, the claims must be directed to one of the four statutory categories. All the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (YES).
Under Step 2A in MPEP 2106.04, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a judicially recognized exception. Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry.
Under Prong 1, it is determined whether the claim recites a judicial exception (YES). Taking Claim 1 as representative, the claim recites limitations that fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity groupings of abstract ideas, including:
-receiving user information associated with a self-checkout product scanning application;
-employing, by a machine-learning based qualification service, machine learning to determine, in real time, a form and structure for presentation of a financing option on a communication device of a customer based on the user information and transaction context, the machine-learning based qualification service further configured to determin[ing] personalized financing options based on at least the user information and transaction information to tailor the form and structure of the financing option to include interest options and payment term options known to be favored by the customer based on past knowledge of user behavior from the user information;
-providing instructions for execution at the communication device of the customer that when executed display [of] a total amount of a transaction along with a link to the financing option for selection of financing the transaction to purchase one or more items in a virtual cart of the self-checkout product scanning application based on the user information received, the instructions further providing for display of a selectable option for an alternative payment method to the financing option adjacent to the [financing option] link, wherein the instructions generate, on a screen of the communication device, a dynamic interface that presents the [financing option] link to the financing option adjacent to the selectable option for the alternative payment method within the same self-checkout workflow;
-responsive to selection of the link by the customer, performing a credit extension decision with respect to a financing option based on the user information and transaction information associated with the transaction; and
-responsive to an approval from the credit extension decision, financing the transaction by providing payment for the transaction to a merchant associated with the self-checkout product scanning application,
-wherein the screen of the communication device of the customer is a mobile device screen
The above limitations recite the concept of providing and approving financing options for a transaction. The above limitations fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” groupings of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a).
Certain methods of organizing human activity include:
fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, and mitigating risk)
commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; and business relations)
managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
The limitations of receiving user information associated with a self-checkout product scanning application; employing, by a machine-learning based qualification service, machine learning to determine, in real time, a form and structure for presentation of a financing option on a communication device of a customer based on the user information and transaction context, the machine-learning based qualification service further configured to determin[ing] personalized financing options based on at least the user information and transaction information to tailor the form and structure of the financing option to include interest options and payment term options known to be favored by the customer based on past knowledge of user behavior from the user information; providing instructions for execution at the communication device of the customer that when executed display [of] a total amount of a transaction along with a link to the financing option for selection of financing the transaction to purchase one or more items in a virtual cart of the self-checkout product scanning application based on the user information received, the instructions further providing for display of a selectable option for an alternative payment method to the financing option adjacent to the [financing option] link, wherein the instructions generate, on a screen of the communication device, a dynamic interface that presents the [financing option] link to the financing option adjacent to the selectable option for the alternative payment method within the same self-checkout workflow; responsive to selection of the link by the customer, performing a credit extension decision with respect to a financing option based on the user information and transaction information associated with the transaction; and responsive to an approval from the credit extension decision, financing the transaction by providing payment for the transaction to a merchant associated with the self-checkout product scanning application are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a commercial interaction. That is, other than reciting that the self-checkout is a self-checkout product scanning application, that the qualification service is a machine-learning based qualification service, that the determining of a form and structure is done by employing machine learning, that the presentation of the financing option is on a communication device of a customer, that the service is configured to determine, that the providing the display is providing instructions for execution at a communication device of a customer that when executed display, that the financing option is provided via a link, that the cart is a virtual cart, instructions being further provided for the displaying of a selectable option for an alternative payment method, that the presenting is by instructions to generate a dynamic interface on a screen of the communication device, that the presenting of the options are within the same self-checkout workflow, and that the selection is a selection of the link, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed by people. For example, but for the “self-checkout product scanning application,” “a machine-learning based qualification service,” “machine learning,” “a communication device,” “configured to,” “instructions for execution,” “link,” “virtual,” “the instructions generate, on a screen of the communication device, a dynamic interface,” and “the same self-checkout workflow” language, “receiving,” “employing,” “determine,” “providing,” “selection,” “performing,” “approval,” and “financing” in the context of this claim encompasses advertising, and marketing or sales activities.
Under Prong 2, it is determined whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (NO).
-receiving user information associated with a self-checkout product scanning application;
-employing, by a machine-learning based qualification service, machine learning to determine, in real time, a form and structure for presentation of a financing option on a communication device of a customer based on the user information and transaction context, the machine-learning based qualification service further configured to determine personalized financing options based on at least the user information and transaction information to tailor the form and structure of the financing option to include interest options and payment term options known to be favored by the customer based on past knowledge of user behavior from the user information;
-providing instructions for execution at the communication device of the customer that when executed display a total amount of a transaction along with a link to the financing option for selection of financing the transaction to purchase one or more items in a virtual cart of the self-checkout product scanning application based on the user information received, the instructions further providing for display of a selectable option for an alternative payment method to the financing option adjacent to the link, wherein the instructions generate, on a screen of the communication device, a dynamic interface that presents the link to the financing option adjacent to the selectable option for the alternative payment method within the same self-checkout workflow;
-responsive to selection of the link by the customer, performing a credit extension decision with respect to a financing option based on the user information and transaction information associated with the transaction; and
-responsive to an approval from the credit extension decision, financing the transaction by providing payment for the transaction to a merchant associated with the self-checkout product scanning application,
-wherein the screen of the communication device of the customer is a mobile device screen
The additional elements of claim 1 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on a generic computing hardware (or, merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea) as supported by paragraph [0050] of Applicant’s specification – “The processor 102 may be embodied in a number of different ways. For example, the processor 102 may be embodied as various processing means such as a microprocessor or other processing element, a coprocessor, a controller or various other computing or processing devices including integrated circuits such as, for example, an ASIC (application specific integrated circuit), an FPGA (field programmable gate array), a hardware accelerator, or the like. In an example embodiment, the processor 102 may be configured to execute instructions stored in the memory 104 or otherwise accessible to the processor 102.” Specifically, the additional elements of a self-checkout product scanning application, a machine-learning based qualification service, machine learning, a communication device, configured to, instructions for execution, a link, a virtual cart, the instructions generate, on a screen of the communication device, a dynamic interface, the same self-checkout workflow, and wherein the screen of the communication device of the user is a mobile device screen are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing the generic computer functions of receiving data, employing data, determining data, providing data, selecting data, performing a decision, approving data, and financing by providing data) such that they amount do no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as computers or computing networks). Employing well-known computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
Additionally, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim fails to i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, ii) apply the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or iv) apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, it is determined whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims of the present application do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (NO).
In the case of claim 1, taken individually or as a whole, the additional elements of claim 1 do not provide an inventive concept. As discussed above under step 2A (prong 2) with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed functions amount to no more than a general link to a technological environment.
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements do not add anything significantly more than when considered individually.
Claim 10 is an apparatus reciting similar functions as claim 1. Examiner notes that claim 10 recites the additional elements of processing circuitry, a self-checkout product scanning application, a machine-learning based qualification service, machine learning, a communication device, configured to, instructions for execution, a link, a virtual cart, the instructions generate, on a screen of the communication device, a dynamic interface, the same self-checkout workflow, and wherein the screen of the communication device of the user is a mobile device screen, however, claim 10 does not qualify as eligible subject matter for similar reasons as claim 1 indicated above.
Claim 21 is a method reciting similar functions as claim 1. Examiner notes that claim 21 recites the additional elements of a self-checkout product scanning application, a machine-learning based qualification service, machine learning, a communication device, configured to, a link, a virtual cart, a first workflow, a second workflow, a smartphone, a first interface screen, a second interface screen, and a third interface screen, however, claim 21 does not qualify as eligible subject matter for similar reasons as claim 1 indicated above.
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements do not add anything significantly more than when considered individually.
Therefore, claims 10 and 21 do not provide an inventive concept and do not qualify as eligible subject matter.
Dependent claims 2-9, 11-17, and 22-23, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because they do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea. More specifically, dependent claims 2-9, 11-17, and 22-23 further fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas in that they recite commercial interactions. Dependent claims 2-3, 8, and 11-12, do not recite any farther additional elements, and as such are not indicative of integration into a practical application for at least similar reasons discussed above. Dependent claims 4-7, 9, 13-17, and 22-23 recite the additional elements of self-checkout product scanning application, a first workflow, a second workflow, the link, a smartphone, a first server, a second server, a first interface screen, a second interface screen, a third interface screen, a fourth interface screen, the virtual cart, and the processing circuitry, but similar to the analysis under prong two of Step 2A these additional elements are used as a tool to perform the abstract idea. As such, under prong two of Step 2A, claims 2-9, 11-17, and 22-23 are not indicative of integration into a practical application for at least similar reasons as discussed above. Thus, dependent claims 2-9, 11-17, and 22-23 are “directed to” an abstract idea. Next, under Step 2B, similar to the analysis of claims 1, 10 and 21, dependent claims 2-9, 11-17, and 22-23 when analyzed individually and as an ordered combination, merely further define the commonplace business method (i.e. providing and approving financing options for a transaction) being applied on a general-purpose computer and, therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 8-11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hogg et al. (US 2021/0279709 A1), previously cited and hereinafter Hogg, in view of Kim et al. (US 12,346,962 B1), newly cited hereinafter Kim, in further view of Hernandez et al. (US 11,922,495 B1), previously cited and hereinafter Hernandez.
Regarding claim 1, Hogg discloses a method for providing financing in connection with product scanning self-checkout, the method comprising:
-receiving user information associated with a self-checkout product scanning application (Hogg, see at least: “The method begins with the consumer logging into his or her app, and thereby accessing his or her account data, including the open-to-lease approval balance (operation 1000). Thus, the consumer's 100 account information is accessed via login credentials [i.e. receiving user information associated with a self-checkout product scanning application]” [0067] and “the consumer 100 constructs his or her order via use of the camera onboard his or her device 104 to scan the barcode of the particular item [i.e. a self-checkout product scanning application] he or she desires to lease. The barcode information is sent from the app to the backend system 108 for reconciliation into a product description via a global trade identification number such as a UPC, EAN, or ISBN look-up operation” [0068]);
-providing instructions for execution at the communication device of the customer that when executed display a total amount of a transaction along with a link to the financing option for selection of financing the transaction to purchase one or more items in a virtual cart of the self-checkout product scanning application based on the user information received, the instructions further providing for display of a selectable option for an alternative payment method to the financing option adjacent to the link (Hogg, see at least: “In operation 1106, a selectable element (such as a button) associated with a checkout path by which the consumer 100 may lease the products in the cart via a lease-to-own relationship is added to the shopping cart by the extension [i.e. a link to the financing option for selection of financing the transaction to purchase one or more items in a virtual cart of the self-checkout product scanning application]” [0082] and “The methods, apparatuses and systems disclosed herein are useful in connection with lease-to-own arrangements and additionally with any form of financing arrangement, including but not limited to consumer financing arrangements, such as retail installment sales … although the particular transactional constraint referenced herein relates to suitability of a good for conveyance via a lease-to-own arrangement, the methods, apparatuses and systems disclosed herein are not so limited and may be adapted to apply to another such transactional constraint” [0036] and “The method begins with the consumer logging into his or her app, and thereby accessing his or her account data, including the open-to-lease approval balance (operation 1000) [i.e. based on the user information received]. Thus, the consumer's 100 account information is accessed via login credentials” [0067] and Fig. 12 shows an interface that displays the order summary total as well as the ‘preferred lease’ button [i.e. providing instructions for execution at a communication device of a customer that when executed display a total amount of a transaction along with a link to the financing option for selection of financing the transaction] adjacent to a paypal link [i.e. the instructions further providing for display of a selectable option for an alternative payment method to the financing option adjacent to the link]; also see [0036]),
-wherein the instructions generate, on a screen of the communication device, a dynamic interface that presents the link to the financing option adjacent to the selectable option for the alternative payment method (Hogg, see at least: “such a transaction flow may start with a customer downloading and installing an app on a mobile device [i.e. on a screen of the communication device]. The app may then be used to scan a bar code of an item they would like to purchase, and in response thereto the financing company executes a preapproval process for providing funds for purchasing the desired item … Financing information and terms are then presented on the customers device via the app [i.e. wherein the instructions generate, on a small-screen mobile device, a dynamic interface that presents the link]” [0031] and “In operation 1106, a selectable element (such as a button) associated with a checkout path by which the consumer 100 may lease the products in the cart via a lease-to-own relationship is added to the shopping cart by the extension [i.e. a dynamic interface that presents the link to the financing option]” [0082] and Fig. 12 shows an interface that displays the order summary total as well as the ‘preferred lease’ button adjacent to a paypal link [i.e. a dynamic interface that presents the link to the financing option adjacent to the selectable option for the alternative payment method]);
-responsive to selection of the link by the customer, performing a credit extension decision with respect to a financing option based on the user information and transaction information associated with the transaction (Hogg, see at least: “In the wake of the consumer 100 clicking the button 1202 [i.e. responsive to selection of the link by the customer], the extension communicates with the backend platform 108 (operation 1109). The datastore 112 of the backend platform 108 contains records associated with each online retailer with which the extension is interoperable. (The extension is interoperable with a given online retailer if it is coded to instruct the web browser to launch the extension in response to the web browser having been navigated to the retailer's shopping cart.) These records reflect, on a retailer-by-retailer basis which particular products are suitable for leasing via a lease-to-own arrangement [i.e. with respect to transaction information associated with the transaction]” [0083] and “if the extension received a response from the backend 108 indicating that all of the products in the shopping cart were eligible [i.e. performing a credit extension decision with respect to a financing option] for leasing, the extension would overlay a different user interface over the shopping cart, such as the one depicted in FIG. 13” [0088] and “the backend platform 108 manages the consumer's 100 account in such a way that a given consumer's 100 currently available open-to-lease approval balance [i.e. based on the user information] is depleted as he or she leases products, but is restored as he or she makes payments, so that the open-to-lease approval balance is of the nature of a revolving account” [0043] and “The methods, apparatuses and systems disclosed herein are useful in connection with lease-to-own arrangements and additionally with any form of financing arrangement, including but not limited to consumer financing arrangements, such as retail installment sales [i.e. performing a credit extension decision with respect to a financing option] … although the particular transactional constraint referenced herein relates to suitability of a good for conveyance via a lease-to-own arrangement, the methods, apparatuses and systems disclosed herein are not so limited and may be adapted to apply to another such transactional constraint” [0036]); and
-responsive to an approval from the credit extension decision, financing the transaction by providing payment for the transaction to a merchant associated with the self-checkout product scanning application (Hogg, see at least: “if the extension received a response from the backend 108 indicating that all of the products in the shopping cart were eligible for leasing [i.e. responsive to an approval from the credit extension decision], the extension would overlay a different user interface over the shopping cart, such as the one depicted in FIG. 13” [0088] and “The purposes of the user interface presented in operation 1110 [i.e. responsive to an approval from the credit extension decision] are: (1) to collect from the consumer 100 sufficient information to permit the extension to complete the checkout process on behalf of the consumer 100; and (2) guide the consumer 100 through the presentation and execution of a lease-to-own agreement by which the lease-to-own company agrees to buy the product or products in the cart on behalf of the consumer 100 [i.e. financing the transaction by providing payment for the transaction to a merchant associated with the self-checkout product scanning application] and lease them to the consumer 100, and by which the consumer 100 agrees to lease the product or products pursuant to certain terms” [0089]),
-wherein the screen of the communication device of the customer is a mobile device screen (Hogg, see at least: “such a transaction flow may start with a customer downloading and installing an app on a mobile device [i.e. a mobile device]. The app may then be used to scan a bar code of an item they would like to purchase, and in response thereto the financing company executes a preapproval process for providing funds for purchasing the desired item … Financing information and terms are then presented on the customers device via the app [i.e. wherein the screen of the communication device of the customer is a mobile device screen]” [0031]).
Hogg does not explicitly disclose employing, by a machine-learning based qualification service, machine learning to determine, in real time, a form and structure for presentation of a financing option on a communication device of a customer based on the user information and transaction context, the machine-learning based qualification service further configured to determine personalized financing options based on at least the user information and transaction information to tailor the form and structure of the financing option to include interest options and payment term options known to be favored by the customer based on past knowledge of user behavior from the user information.
Kim, however, teaches providing financing options (i.e. abstract) including the known technique of employing, by a machine-learning based qualification service, machine learning to determine, in real time, a form and structure for presentation of a financing option on a communication device of a customer based on the user information and transaction context, the machine-learning based qualification service further configured to determine personalized financing options based on at least the user information and transaction information to tailor the form and structure of the financing option to include interest options and payment term options known to be favored by the customer based on past knowledge of user behavior from the user information (Kim, see at least: “Examples herein improve on conventional technique by employing machine learning to provide proximate intelligent early underwriting of consumer financing based on determining buyer purchase behavior, merchant inventory information, and/or merchant point-of-sale (POS) activity [i.e. based on the user information and transaction context]. The implementations herein enable financing at a merchant location in real-time or near-real-time [i.e. employing, by a machine-learning based qualification service, machine learning to determine, in real time, a form and structure for presentation of a financing option] … the system herein provides interactive user interfaces with a buyer application that enables new functionality for buyers to obtain on-the-spot financing [i.e. on a communication device of a customer] at a merchant location before or during a transaction to purchase a selected item” Col. 8 Ln. 4-21 and “The distributed system herein includes improved functionality that enables the service computing device to determine financing for eligible buyers for making purchases from certain select merchants based at least partially on information related to past transactions conducted by a plurality of merchants that use the payment processing system. The financing herein may encompass various financing methods, such as cash advances, loans, and so forth, and may include proximate intelligent early underwriting of consumer financing based on machine learning related to buyer purchase behavior and merchant point-of-sale (POS) information [i.e. the machine-learning based qualification service configured to determine personalized financing options based on at least the user information and transaction information]” Col. 2 Ln. 34-45 and “Based on receiving the request for financing of the mattress purchase from the buyer device, the service computing device may access a transaction information data structure that includes transaction information from a large number of transactions conducted by the buyer and/or other buyers with a large number of merchants … the service computing device may determine the buyer's past purchase activity at the current furniture store and/or at other furniture stores [i.e. based on the user information and transaction context] ... Based on the buyer's transaction history and/or the transaction history of the specified merchant and/or similar merchants [i.e. based on at least the user information and transaction information], the service computing device may determine that the buyer is eligible and may further determine the financing terms based at least in part on this information. For example, a transaction profile determined for a particular merchant from the transaction information may be used to determine the financing terms to offer to a buyer seeking to purchase an item from the particular merchant" Col. 3 Ln. 45-67 and "the merchant selling the mattress to the buyer may be paid in full at the time of purchase and the buyer may make payments to the payment processing system for a total amount of purchase price, plus agreed-to interest or a financing fee [i.e. to tailor the form and structure of the financing option to include interest options and payment term options]" Col. 5 Ln. 9-17 and "Based on these determinations, the payment processing program may cause the merchant application 118 to present to the buyer e.g., on the buyer facing display 1308, an offer for financing for the amount of the current transaction, along with terms for the financing customized based on the analysis of the buyer 112 and the current merchant 114 [i.e. to tailor the form and structure of the financing option to include interest options and payment term options known to be favored by the customer based on past knowledge of user behavior from the user information]. If the buyer 112 accepts the financing offer, the buyer 112 may be asked whether the buyer would like to apply the previously selected repayment terms [i.e. to tailor the form and structure of the financing option to include interest options and payment term options known to be favored by the customer based on past knowledge of user behavior from the user information] or to select new repayment terms, such as a number of payments and whether the buyer 112 would like manual or automatic payments" Col. 24 Ln. 1-11 and Fig. 5 displays different financing options including amount per month, interest amount and rate, and number of payments [i.e. determine a form and structure for presentation] Examiner notes that, while art is applied, “to tailor the form and structure of the financing option to include interest options and payment term options known to be favored by the customer based on past knowledge of user behavior from the user information” is an intended result and therefore holds little patentable weight). This known technique is applicable to the method of Hogg as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to providing financing options.
It would have been recognized that applying the known technique of employing, by a machine-learning based qualification service, machine learning to determine, in real time, a form and structure for presentation of a financing option on a communication device of a customer based on the user information and transaction context, the machine-learning based qualification service further configured to determine personalized financing options based on at least the user information and transaction information to tailor the form and structure of the financing option to include interest options and payment term options known to be favored by the customer based on past knowledge of user behavior from the user information, as taught by Kim, to the teachings of Hogg would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such references into similar methods. Further, adding the modification of employing, by a machine-learning based qualification service, machine learning to determine, in real time, a form and structure for presentation of a financing option on a communication device of a customer based on the user information and transaction context, the machine-learning based qualification service further configured to determine personalized financing options based on at least the user information and transaction information to tailor the form and structure of the financing option to include interest options and payment term options known to be favored by the customer based on past knowledge of user behavior from the user information, as taught by Kim, into the method of Hogg would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved method that would enable buyers to obtain on-the-spot financing (Kim, Col. 8 Ln. 17-21).
Hogg in view of Kim does not explicitly teach generating a dynamic interface that presents the link to the financing option adjacent to the selectable option for the alternative payment method within the same self-checkout workflow.
Hernandez, however, teaches an intelligent lending platform (i.e. abstract), including the known technique of generating, on a screen of the communication device, a dynamic interface that presents the link to the financing option adjacent to the selectable option for the alternative payment method within the same self-checkout workflow (Hernandez, see at least: “FIG. 3A is an example graphical user interface (GUI) 302 that a seller website or application may present in response to a user requesting to acquire an example item [i.e. within the same self-checkout workflow], here an arrangement of flowers. As illustrated, the GUI 302 includes details 304 regarding the item, as well as indication of a price 306 of the item. The GUI 302 also includes, in this example, an icon 308 that, when selected, enables the user to pay for the item by paying for the item in full. In addition, the GUI 302 includes an icon 308 that, when selected, enables the user to request to pay for the item in multiple installments [i.e. generating a dynamic interface that presents the link to the financing option adjacent to the selectable option for the alternative payment method]” Col. 20 Ln. 55-65 and “The environment 700 can include a plurality of user devices 706, as described above. Each one of the plurality of user devices 706 can be any type of computing device such as a tablet computing device, a smart phone or mobile communication device [i.e. on a screen of the communication device]” Col. 27 Ln. 29-33 and Fig. 3A displays that the ‘Buy Now’ option is adjacent to the ‘Split into 4 Installments’ option [i.e. generating a dynamic interface that presents the link to the financing option adjacent to the selectable option for the alternative payment method]). This known technique is applicable to the method of Hogg in view of Kim as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to an intelligent lending platform.
It would have been recognized that applying the known technique of generating, on a screen of the communication device, a dynamic interface that presents the link to the financing option adjacent to the selectable option for the alternative payment method within the same self-checkout workflow, as taught by Hernandez, to the teachings of Hogg in view of Kim would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such references into similar methods. Further, adding the modifications of generating, on a screen of the communication device, a dynamic interface that presents the link to the financing option adjacent to the selectable option for the alternative payment method within the same self-checkout workflow, as taught by Hernandez, into the method of Hogg in view of Kim would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved method that would offer customized or personalized reasoning for lending decisions (Hernandez, Col. 2 Ln. 51-52).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Hogg/Kim/Hernandez teaches the method of claim 1. Hogg further discloses:
-wherein the credit extension decision is further performed responsive to receipt of account identification information associated with the customer (Hogg, see at least: “The method begins with the consumer logging into his or her app [i.e. wherein the credit extension decision is further performed responsive to receipt of account identification information associated with the customer], and thereby accessing his or her account data, including the open-to-lease approval balance (operation 1000). Thus, the consumer's 100 account information is accessed via login credentials” [0067]).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Hogg/Kim/Hernandez teaches the method of claim 1. Hogg further discloses:
-wherein the financing option is an installment loan (Hogg, see at least: “The methods, apparatuses and systems disclosed herein are useful in connection with lease-to-own arrangements and additionally with any form of financing arrangement, including but not limited to consumer financing arrangements, such as retail installment sales [i.e. wherein the financing option is an installment loan] … although the particular transactional constraint referenced herein relates to suitability of a good for conveyance via a lease-to-own arrangement, the methods, apparatuses and systems disclosed herein are not so limited and may be adapted to apply to another such transactional constraint” [0036]).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Hogg/Kim/Hernandez teaches the method of claim 1. Hogg further discloses:
-further comprising, receiving from the self-checkout product scanning application, item level information on contents of the virtual cart (Hogg, see at least: “the extension reads or scrapes the descriptions of the product or products that have been added into the native shopping cart of the retail website (operation 1104). An example of a shopping cart native to a retail website [i.e. receiving from the self-checkout product scanning application] is depicted in FIG. 12. Therein, the product description 1200 that is read or scraped by the extension is visible: “Energizer—MAX AAA Batteries (24-Pack).” [i.e. item level information on contents of the virtual cart]” [0081] and “the consumer 100 constructs his or her order via use of the camera onboard his or her device 104 to scan the barcode of the particular item [i.e. receiving from the self-checkout product scanning application] he or she desires to lease. The barcode information is sent from the app to the backend system 108 for reconciliation into a product description via a global trade identification number such as a UPC, EAN, or ISBN look-up operation” [0068]).
Claims 10, 11, and 17 recite limitations directed towards apparatus (Hogg, see at least: [0036]) for providing financing in connection with product scanning self-checkout, the apparatus comprising processing circuitry (Hogg, see at least: [0143]). The limitations recited in claims 10, 11, and 17 are parallel in nature to those addressed above for claims 1, 2, and 9, respectively, and are therefore rejected for those same reasons set forth above in claims 1, 2, and 9, respectively.
Claims 3-7 and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hogg in view of Kim, in further view of Hernandez, in further view of Beck et al. (US 2013/0191213 A1), previously cited and hereinafter Beck.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Hogg/Kim/Hernandez teaches the method of claim 2.
The combination of Hogg/Kim/Hernandez does not explicitly disclose the account identification information comprising a phone number of the customer.
Beck, however, teaches a checkout process for purchasing items (i.e. abstract), including the known technique of the account identification information comprising a phone number of the customer (Beck, see at least: “the merchant portal (143) is configured to allow the user (101) to register the communication reference (205) in association with the account data [i.e. wherein the account identification information] (111), such as the account information (142) of the consumer account (146); and the media controller (115) is to use the communication reference (205) to deliver the message to the point of interaction (107). Examples of the communication reference (205) include a mobile phone number, [i.e. comprises a phone number of the customer] an email address, a user identifier of an instant messaging system, an IP address, etc.” [0219]). This known technique is applicable to the method of the combination of Hogg/Kim/Hernandez as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to a checkout process for purchasing items.
It would have been recognized that applying the known technique of the account identification information comprising a phone number of the customer, as taught by Beck, to the teachings of the combination of Hogg/Kim/Hernandez would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such references into similar methods. Further, adding the modification of the account identification information comprising a phone number of the customer, as taught by Beck, into the method of the combination of Hogg/Kim/Hernandez would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved method that would allow the user to register a communication reference (Beck, [0219]).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Hogg/Kim/Hernandez teaches the method of claim 1. Hogg further discloses:
-wherein the self-checkout product scanning application manages a first workflow with the customer (Hogg, see at least: “FIG. 11 initiates at a point in time wherein certain events have previously transpired: the consumer 100 has been shopping on a retail website via a web browser, has identified products he or she desires to lease via a lease-to-own arrangement, has added those products to a shopping cart that is native to the aforementioned retail website [i.e. wherein the self-checkout product scanning application manages a first workflow with the customer], and has navigated to the shopping cart (operation 1100)” [0079]),
-wherein the customer initiates a second workflow responsive to the customer selecting the link (Hogg, see at least: “In the wake of the consumer 100 clicking the button 1202 [i.e. responsive to the customer selecting the link], the extension communicates with the backend platform 108 (operation 1109) [i.e. wherein the customer initiates a second workflow]. The datastore 112 of the backend platform 108 contains records associated with each online retailer with which the extension is interoperable. (The extension is interoperable with a given online retailer if it is coded to instruct the web browser to launch the extension in response to the web browser having been navigated to the retailer's shopping cart.)” [0083] and “The net result of the operations of FIG. 11 is that the extension manages the processes of determining whether the products selected for leasing via a lease-to-own arrangement are suitable, further manages the processes of agreement creation, presentation and execution, and then automatically conducts the process of purchasing the product and having it delivered to the consumer 100 (or to an address of the consumer's 100 choosing). These processes are initiated via a button [i.e. responsive to the customer selecting the link] that appears as though it is natively a part of the retailer's website, and via user interfaces that also appear as though they are natively a part of the retailer's website” [0096]), and
-wherein the second workflow ends after providing the payment for the transaction to the merchant (Hogg, see at least: “The net result of the operations of FIG. 11 is that the extension manages the processes of determining whether the products selected for leasing via a lease-to-own arrangement are suitable, further manages the processes of agreement creation, presentation and execution, and then automatically conducts the process of purchasing the product [i.e. wherein the second workflow ends after providing the payment for the transaction to the merchant] and having it delivered to the consumer 100 (or to an address of the consumer's 100 choosing).” [0096]).
The combination of Hogg/Kim/Hernandez does not explicitly teach that the second workflow ends after providing the payment for the transaction to the merchant at which time the first workflow manages provision of an exit pass or code to a smartphone of the customer.
Beck, however, teaches a checkout process for purchasing items (i.e. abstract), including the known technique of the second workflow ending after providing the payment for the transaction to the merchant at which time the first workflow manages provision of an exit pass or code to a smartphone of the customer (Beck, see at least: “The app may provide an indication of a pay amount due for the purchase of the product (e.g., 542). In one embodiment, the app may provide various options for the user to pay the amount for purchasing the product(s) … the app may allow the user to utilize other accounts (e.g., Google.TM. Checkout, Paypal.TM. account, etc.) [i.e. the second workflow ends after providing the payment for the transaction to the merchant] to pay for the purchase transaction (e.g., 546) … the app [i.e. at which time the first workflow] may provide the user with an option to display the product identification information captured by the client device (e.g., in order to show the product information to a customer service representative at the exit of a store) [i.e. manages provision of an exit pass or code to a smartphone of the customer]” [0338] and “the user may desire to exit the store after purchasing a product via the app. In such embodiments, the user may be required to provide proof of purchase of the product at the exit of the store. The user may utilize the purchase confirmation receipt obtained from the IPOT server via the app on the client device to provide such proof of product purchase (e.g., 508a). For example, the receipt may include a purchase identifier (e.g., 508c). For example, the purchase identifier may include a barcode, a QR code, an image of a receipt, a video of a purchase action, etc.” [0335] Examiner notes that the second workflow is the workflow used by a third party such as Paypal to provide payment information for the user). This known technique is applicable to the method of the combination of Hogg/Kim/Hernandez as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to a checkout process for purchasing items.
It would have been recognized that applying the known technique of the second workflow ending after providing the payment for the transaction to the merchant at which time the first workflow manages provision of an exit pass or code to a smartphone of the customer, as taught by Beck, to the teachings of the combination of Hogg/Kim/Hernandez would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such references into similar methods. Further, adding the modification of the second workflow ending after providing the payment for the transaction to the merchant at which time the first workflow manages provision of an exit pass or code to a smartphone of the customer, as taught by Beck, into the method of the combination of Hogg/Kim/Hernandez would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved method that would allow the user to purchase products online and exit a physical store afterwards, as well as, allow a third party account to be utilized for purchase of the products (Beck, [0338] and [0335]).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Hogg/Kim/Hernandez/Beck teaches the method of claim 4.
The combination of Hogg/Kim/Hernandez does not explicitly teach the first workflow being operated by a first server and the second workflow being operated by a second server that is different than the first server.
Beck, however, teaches a checkout process for purchasing items (i.e. abstract), including the known technique of the first workflow being operated by a first server and the second workflow being operated by a second server that is different than the first server (Beck, see at least: “The app may provide an indication of a pay amount due for the purchase of the product (e.g., 542). In one embodiment, the app [i.e. wherein the first workflow is operated by a first server] may provide various options for the user to pay the amount for purchasing the product(s) … the app may allow the user to utilize other accounts (e.g., Google.TM. Checkout, Paypal.TM. account, etc.) [i.e. the second workflow is operated by a second server that is different than the first server] to pay for the purchase transaction (e.g., 546)” [0338] and “To use the mobile application (405), the user (101) submits data associating the account information (142) with the mobile application (405) running on the mobile device (411) (e.g., via the microprocessor(s) (173) executing the instructions included in the mobile application (405) [i.e. the first workflow is operated by a first server])” [0277] Examiner notes that the second workflow is the workflow used by a third party such as Paypal to provide payment information for the user). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the combination of Hogg/Kim/Hernandez with Beck for the reasons identified above with respect to claim 4.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Hogg/Kim/Hernandez/Beck teaches the method of claim 4. Hogg further discloses:
-wherein the first workflow provides a first interface screen for customer sign in and a second interface screen for item scanning (Hogg, see at least: “The method begins with the consumer logging into his or her app [i.e. wherein the first workflow provides a first interface screen for customer sign in], and thereby accessing his or her account data, including the open-to-lease approval balance (operation 1000)” [0067] and “In operation 1006, the consumer 100 constructs his or her order via use of the camera onboard his or her device 104 to scan the barcode of the particular item he or she desires to lease [i.e. and a second interface screen for item scanning]” [0068]), and
-wherein the second workflow provides a third interface screen for providing account identification information associated with a new or existing account of the customer, and a fourth interface screen for accepting terms to obtain the financing of the transaction (Hogg, see at least: Fig. 13 displays an interface of the extension [i.e. wherein the second workflow provides a third interface screen] that includes input boxes for the user to enter information such as First Name, Last Name, Address etc. [i.e. for providing account identification information associated with a new or existing account of the customer]; and “as shown in FIG. 15, the consumer 100 is permitted to view the agreement and to execute the agreement [i.e. for accepting terms to obtain the financing of the transaction] by selection of button 1500” [0091]; Fig. 15 displays an interface of the extension for the user to sign and accept the terms of a contract [i.e. a fourth interface screen for accepting terms to obtain the financing of the transaction]).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Hogg/Kim/Hernandez/Beck teaches the method of claim 6. Hogg further discloses:
-wherein the second workflow ends and returns control to the first workflow (Hogg, see at least: “When the consumer 100 selects the button 1500 designated for execution of the lease-to-own agreement, the extension responds in two ways. First, in operation 1616, the extension initiates the creation of a VCC that is usable for a single transaction, and adds the aforementioned transaction to the whitelist maintained at the authorization platform 110. These processes have been discussed previously and are therefore not discussed here. Next, in operation 1618, the extension presents a side panel, initially superimposed over the native payment page or billing information page” [0101] and “The consumer 100 closes the side panel 1700 (by pressing either close button 1702) [i.e. wherein the second workflow ends] and enters the billing information from the side panel 1700 into the native payment page [i.e. and returns control to the first workflow] or billing information page (operation 1620). To assist the consumer 100, the side panel 1700 may remain accessible to the consumer 100 via the side panel button 1800, as shown in FIG. 18. In response to the selection of the side panel button 1800, the side panel 1700 is presented once again to the consumer 100, so that he may copy information therefrom or otherwise refresh his or her memory concerning its contents” [0102]).
The combination of Hogg/Kim/Hernandez does not explicitly disclose the second workflow ending and returning control to the first workflow responsive to providing a communication to the self-checkout product scanning application to confirm completion of the financing of the transaction.
Beck, however, teaches a checkout process for purchasing items (i.e. abstract), including the known technique of the second workflow ending and returning control to the first workflow responsive to providing a communication to the self-checkout product scanning application to confirm completion of the financing of the transaction (Beck, see at least: “The app may provide an indication of a pay amount due for the purchase of the product (e.g., 542). In one embodiment, the app may provide various options for the user to pay the amount for purchasing the product(s) … the app may allow the user to utilize other accounts (e.g., Google.TM. Checkout, Paypal.TM. account, etc.) [i.e. wherein the second workflow ends] to pay for the purchase transaction (e.g., 546) … the app [i.e. and returns control to the first workflow] may provide the user with an option to display the product identification information captured by the client device (e.g., in order to show the product information to a customer service representative at the exit of a store) [i.e. responsive to providing a communication to the self-checkout product scanning application to confirm completion of the financing of the transaction]” [0338] Examiner notes that the second workflow is the workflow used by a third party such as Paypal to provide payment information for the user). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the combination of Hogg/Kim/Hernandez with Beck for the reasons identified above with respect to claim 4.
Claims 12-16 recite limitations directed towards apparatus. The limitations recited in claims 12-16 are parallel in nature to those addressed above for claims 3-7, respectively, and are therefore rejected for those same reasons set forth above in claims 3-7, respectively.
Subject Matter Allowable Over the Prior Art
In the present application, claims 21-23 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 USC § 101 set forth in this Office action. The following is the Examiner's statement of reasons of allowance:
Regarding 35 U.S.C. §103, upon review of the evidence at hand, it is hereby concluded that the totality of the evidence, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, nor renders obvious the below noted features of the applicant’s invention. Claims 21-23 are allowable over the prior art as follows:
Claims 21-23 are allowable over 35 U.S.C. §103 as follows:
Claims 21-23 are allowable for the reasons detailed in the “Allowable Subject Matter” section of the Non-Final Office Action dated 08/05/2025.
The most relevant prior art made of record includes over Hogg et al. (US 2021/0279709 A1), Hernandez et al. (US 11,922,495 B1), Beck et al. (US 2013/0191213 A1), and Simon et al. (US 11,151,646 B1).
The most relevant NPL:
Cited NPL reference U (cited 08/01/2025, 11/14/2025, 04/17/2026, and 09/03/2026 on PTO-892) teaches purchasing products online that use installment payments but does not teach or suggest the recited limitations.
Response to Arguments
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101
Applicant requests reconsideration of the SMED in light of the guidance provided by Director Squires and in light of the Appeals Review Panel (ARP) decision In re Desjardins, Appeal No. 2024-00567 (PTAB September 26, 2025, Appeals Review Panel Decision), hereinafter "Desjardins"). The Office Action does not appear to suggest any shortcoming in regard to rules or policies in relation to Dr. Whitmire' s SMED with the exception of the requirement for nexus, which will be addressed below. Thus, it would appear to be conceded that Dr. Whitmire is competent to opine regarding how one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret aspects of the claimed invention as a technological improvement, and the declaration otherwise complies with all formality requirements. In relation to nexus, the Examiner has apparently taken the position that there is not nexus between the invention as claimed and the evidence provided in Dr. Whitmire's SMED. We use the term "apparently" here because although it is stated that the Examiner disagrees that there is nexus, the discussion at pages 37 and 38 of the Office Action regarding nexus does not in any way demonstrate how there is not nexus between that which is claimed and the evidence provided except to disparage Dr. Whitmire's SMED as mere "opinion." The very MPEP sections cited in the Office Action (i.e., MPEP 716.0l(b) and MPEP 2145 indicate directly that "Office personnel should avoid giving no weight to evidence submitted by applicant, expect in rare circumstances" presumably where nexus is not established. Dr. Whitmire's "opinion" specifically addresses how one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret aspects of the claimed invention, which is precisely in line with the dictates of the SMED Memorandum. His "opinion" specifically relates to the claim language and to the meaning of claim terms in relation to what one of skill in the art would find conventional as activities considered both individually and in their recited combination. Thus, Dr. Whitmire's "opinion" is
objective evidence that relates directly to that which is claimed, and not merely to peripheral issues, generic outcomes or other aspects that are actually not claimed. The legal and factual determination regarding nexus has to do with whether the opinion relates to matters reflected in that which is claimed, or to issues not tied to the claimed features or not coextensive with them.
The Office Action does not explain any shortcoming of Dr. Whitmire's SMED in relation to its tie to claimed feature or co-extensiveness with them. Thus, the allegation of a lack of nexus is improper. Turning more specifically to the guidance of MPEP 716.0l(b), it is noteworthy that the case law cited all relates to non-obviousness, and not to patent eligibility. The recitations the
Office Action cites relate to non-obviousness, and secondary considerations, and that is not at issue here. In the case of non-obviousness, nexus is presumed when the asserted objective evidence is tied to a certain product and that product includes the claimed features and is coextensive with them. In the case of eligibility then, the evidence, which in this case is Dr. Whitmire' s insight into what one of skill in the art would interpret aspects of the invention, must be related to that which is claimed. And it is. Dr. Whitmire' s insight into what one of skill in the art would interpret is consistent with purpose with the SMED Memorandum, and his commentary was related directly to the actual features claimed, and not other aspects. Thus, nexus does exist and corresponding weight should be given to his opinion. The casual dismissal of Dr. Whitmire's SMED is evident from the numerous places where the Examiner "disagrees" with Dr. Whitmire. Dr. Whitmire's SMED is evidence, and evidence is not agreed with or disagreed with, it is weighed for probative value and considered according to the appropriate weight it is consequently given. In the present situation, the only apparent reason for giving Dr. Whitmire's SMED little weight was the argument that it lacked nexus. As noted above, any allegation of the lack of nexus is inappropriate. Dr. Whitmire' s SMED provides the insights that SMEDs are intended to provide, and it has nexus. It should be given weight accordingly, or its reason for not being given weight should be explained beyond the mere disagreement with the evidence (Remarks, pages 9-12).
Examiner did not dismiss or disparage Dr. Whitmire's SMED, was considered fully but found unpersuasive. As pointed out in the SMED Memorandum, “For an evidentiary declaration to be relevant, there must be a nexus between the invention as claimed and the evidence provided in the declaration. For example, a SMED may demonstrate how one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret a specification that describes a technological improvement to show that the claimed invention is patent-eligible subject matter. To be of probative value, any objective evidence should be supported by actual proof … a SMED may provide facts that describe the state of the art at the time of filing, provide objective evidence as to how the invention improved upon the state of the art, or provide a factual basis for determining that one of ordinary skill in the art would have concluded that the invention improved the underlying technology” Dr. Whitmire himself describes the submitted SMED as opinion in points 4 and 13.
Additionally, the SMED Memorandum states that “the applicant may submit evidence traversing the rejection according to the procedures set forth in MPEP 716.01 and 37 CFR 1.132.5.” Again, “The term "nexus" designates a factually and legally sufficient connection between the objective evidence of nonobviousness and the claimed invention so that the evidence is of probative value in the determination of nonobviousness” (see MPEP 716.01(b)) and “Consideration of rebuttal evidence and arguments requires Office personnel to weigh the proffered evidence and arguments. Id.; see also In re Alton, 76 F.3d 1168, 1174-75, 37 USPQ2d 1578, 1582-83 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Office personnel should avoid giving no weight to evidence submitted by applicant, except in rare circumstances. However, to be entitled to substantial weight, the applicant should establish a nexus between the rebuttal evidence and the claimed invention, i.e., objective evidence of nonobviousness must be attributable to the claimed invention” (see MPEP 2145). Providing an opinion on the legal analysis of the claims is not objective evidence. Accordingly, the declaration of Dr. David Whitmire under 37 CFR 1.132, submitted on 03/18/2026, has reviewed but found unpersuasive.
Applicant further argues that independent claims 1, 10, and 23 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 integration of computer components into the solution defined" (see SMED point 7). Dr. Whitmire further opined that the "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)" (see SMED point 11). Dr. Whitmire also opines that the "unique combination of tool and concept embodied by that which is claimed in the '641 application defines a new functionality in a specifically defined and structured computing platform that is not fairly construed as a generic computing technology. Not only is the ultimate function (i.e., self-checkout financing options on a mobile device screen) unique, but
the collection of steps used to accomplish the ultimate function, including its combination with a
machine learning tool, is also unique. As such, it is my opinion that the claims of the '641 application integrate any alleged judicial exception into a practical application."(see SMED point 13). Thus, Dr. Whitmire's expert testimony establishes evidence that independent claims 1, 10, and 21 recite a practical application under Step 2A; Prong 2 of the eligibility analysis (Remarks, page 12).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As detailed above, the declaration of Dr. David Whitmire under 37 CFR 1.132, submitted on 03/18/2026, was reviewed but found unpersuasive. Regarding point 7, the claims do not recite the technical details regarding technical solutions to synchronization of transaction state information, coordination of message flows between client devices and remote services, and generation of responsive user interfaces without interrupting the user's ongoing transaction activity. For instance, the claims do not recite the specific interface structures for how the options and links are presented (e.g. embedding, compressing, etc.). Processing data in real-time and presenting this real-time data in an interface are not technical solutions. MPEP 2106.05(a) states “If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement … After the examiner has consulted the specification and determined that the disclosed invention improves technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement in technology.” The current claims do not reflect any technical improvements.
Regarding point 11, even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements do not add anything significantly more than when considered individually. Additionally, an interface displaying options and utilizing a generic machine learning model to analyze data are not unique as any generic interface is capable of displaying these options and any generic machine learning model can be utilized to personalize data. The technology itself is not being improved, rather, it is merely utilized as a tool to improve data (i.e. not a technical improvement).
Regarding point 13, ‘uniqueness’ is not the test for eligibility. Additionally, as stated in response to point 11, an interface displaying options and utilizing a generic machine learning model to analyze data are not unique as any generic interface is capable of displaying these options and any generic machine learning model can be utilized to personalize data. The technology itself is not being improved, rather, it is merely utilized as a tool to improve data (i.e. not a technical improvement).
Accordingly, the claims are ineligible.
Applicant further argues that independent claims 1, 10, and 21 amount to significantly more than any alleged abstract idea. In this regard, Dr. Whitmire noted that "the processing circuitry ( or otherwise facilitation agent itself) is defined with specificity in relation to how it is executed in its operating environment to provide a seamless checkout option on a mobile device screen due to the multitudes of finance and transaction associated information being easily accessible on a mobile device screen, which is typically relatively small." (see SMED point 12). Dr. Whitmire further explains that the "the machine learning is also specifically defined in relation to how it is utilized in ways that are not conventional" (see SMED point 12). Thus, Dr. Whitmire's expert testimony establishes evidence that independent claims 1, 10, and 21 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 (Remarks, page 13).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Again, the declaration of Dr. David Whitmire under 37 CFR 1.132, submitted on 03/18/2026, was reviewed but found unpersuasive. Regarding point 12, the claims merely recite that the interfaces are displayed on a mobile device screen but do not recite technical way in which the interface elements are modified to be displayed on a smaller screen (e.g. embedding, compressing, etc.). Merely displaying less data is not a technical improvement. Additionally, the machine learning is merely utilized as a tool to personalize data. Furthermore, information being easily accessible and quickly providing loan options are business problems not technical problems as required by at least MPEP 2106.05(a). Accordingly, the claims are ineligible.
Applicant further argues that there is a nexus between the invention as claimed, and the evidence provided by Dr. Whitmire because the insights Dr. Whitmire provided relate directly to claimed features and how one of skill in the art would interpret the features recited relative to conventional methods. 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. As previously noted, 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, 10, and 21 are eligible for patenting under the Patent Laws (Remarks, page 13).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Again, the declaration of Dr. David Whitmire under 37 CFR 1.132, submitted on 03/18/2026, was reviewed but found unpersuasive. As described in response to the arguments above, while Dr. David Whitmire has provided an opinion, that has been reviewed and considered, “The term "nexus" designates a factually and legally sufficient connection between the objective evidence of nonobviousness and the claimed invention so that the evidence is of probative value in the determination of nonobviousness” (see MPEP 716.01(b)). Additionally, MPEP 2145 further states: “Consideration of rebuttal evidence and arguments requires Office personnel to weigh the proffered evidence and arguments. Id.; see also In re Alton, 76 F.3d 1168, 1174-75, 37 USPQ2d 1578, 1582-83 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Office personnel should avoid giving no weight to evidence submitted by applicant, except in rare circumstances. However, to be entitled to substantial weight, the applicant should establish a nexus between the rebuttal evidence and the claimed invention, i.e., objective evidence of nonobviousness must be attributable to the claimed invention.” The recited additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims fail reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field. Accordingly, the claims are ineligible.
Applicant further argues that, once independent claims 1, 10, and 21 are appreciated to be patent eligible, dependent claims 2-9, 11-17, 22, and 23 should also be considered patent eligible. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that the rejections of claims 1-17 and 21-23 on statutory grounds are overcome. (Remarks, pages 13-14).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As detailed in response to the arguments above, independent claims 1, 10, and 21 are ineligible. Accordingly, dependent claims 2-9, 11-17, 22, and 23 are ineligible.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103
Applicant argues that Hernandez does not teach that the machine learning based qualification service further configured to determine personalized financing options based on at least the user information and transaction information to tailor the form and structure of the financing option to include interest options and payment term options known to be favored by the customer based on past knowledge of user behavior from the user information (Remarks, page 14).
While Examiner notes that while “to tailor the form and structure of the financing option to include interest options and payment term options known to be favored by the customer based on past knowledge of user behavior from the user information” is an intended result and therefore holds little patentable weight, Kim is cited to teach this amended feature in order to advance prosecution. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the argument does not apply to the current combination of references being used to teach this amended feature.
Applicant further argues that independent claims 1 and 10 are patentable over Hogg and Hernandez, alone or in combination. Beck does not cure this deficiency of Hogg and Hernandez, and is not cited as such. Accordingly, Applicants respectfully submit that claims 1 and 10 are patentable over Hogg, Hernandez, and Beck, alone or in combination (Remarks, page 14).
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the argument does not apply to the current combination of references being used to teach this amended feature. Accordingly, independent claims 1 and 10 are not allowable over the prior art.
Applicant further argues that claims 2-9 and 11-17 depend directly or indirectly from claims 1 and 10, respectively and thus include all of the respective recitations of claims 1 and 10. Therefore, dependent claims 2-9 and 11-17 are patentable for at least those reasons given above for independent claims 1 and 10 (Remarks, page 15).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As detailed above, the cited references teach independent claims 1 and 10, accordingly, dependent claims 2-9 and 11-17 are not allowable over the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
-Jones et al. (US 2022/0383314 A1) teaches providing a user with an installment load option that has a fixed or variable interest and has customer- or product-specific terms and conditions.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARIELLE E WEINER whose telephone number is (571)272-9007. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Maria-Teresa (Marissa) Thein can be reached at 571-272-6764. 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.
/ARIELLE E WEINER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689
Prosecution Insights