DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Amendments filed on 03/18/2026.
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 03/18/2026, has been entered. Claims 1, 10, and 21 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Some of the Objections to the Claims have been withdrawn pursuant Applicant’s amendments.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.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112(b)
The 35 U.S.C. §112(b) rejections have been withdrawn pursuant Applicant’s amendments.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/18/2026 has been entered.
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 objected to because of the following informalities:
-Claims 1 and 10 read “providing instructions for execution at a communication device of a customer” but should likely read “providing instructions for execution at the communication device of the customer”
-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;
-providing instructions for execution at a communication device of a 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 user 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; providing instructions for execution at a communication device of a 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;
-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 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 user 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 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 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 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 user 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 user 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; and 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 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 (Hernandez, see at least: “As illustrated, the GUI 312 includes an indication 314 that the buyer has been approved for a BNPL loan (“You are eligible to pay in installments!”) in response to a lending query requested by the buyer with regards to a particular item. In addition, the GUI 312 includes an indication 316 that the buyer is to make a first payment at the point-of-sale (e.g., “today”) and is thereafter to pay a certain installment thereafter according to the defined schedule. The GUI 312 also includes an icon 318 that is selectable by the buyer to accept the terms of the loan. As described above, these terms may be generated based on profile data associated with the seller, profile data associated with the buyer, or the like. In some instances, machine-learning techniques may be used to receive this profile data (and data associated with the transaction) to generate the terms of the loan [i.e. employing, by a machine-learning based qualification service, machine learning to determine a form and structure for presentation of a financing option based on the user information and transaction context]” Col. 22 Ln. 4-18 and “the service provider 712 may be configured to offer BNPL loans and to automatically determine whether a user is eligible for such a BNPL loan in real-time [i.e. determine, in real time, a form and structure for presentation of a financing option] or near-real-time in response to receiving a lending query from a user” Col. 33 Ln. 65-67 & Col. 34 Ln. 1 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. for presentation of a financing option on a communication device of a customer]” Col. 27 Ln. 29-33 and “The buyer profile data 130 may include any sort of data associated with respective buyers, such as the buyer 102. For instance, such buyer data can include … buyer preferences [i.e. based on the user information] (e.g., learned or buyer-specified)” Col. 12 Ln. 66-67 & Col. 13 Ln. 1-4 and “the payment service or sellers may selectively offer the BNPL loans described herein based on the context of a current transaction [i.e. based on transaction context] … the payment service or a seller device may determine whether to present an option to a user to request a BNPL loan for a particular transaction based on one or more of a preference of a particular buyer, other buyer data (e.g., past transaction history, etc.), data associated with the seller (e.g., a seller classification code (MCC) of the seller, etc.), the item(s) associated with the transaction, a total cost of the transaction, other details of the transaction (e.g., whether the transaction is occurring online or at a brick-and-mortar store, etc.) [i.e. the machine-learning based qualification service further configured to determine personalized financing options based on at least the user information and transaction information]” Col. 8 Ln. 44-56); and
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]). These known techniques are applicable to the method of Hogg 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 techniques 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; and 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 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 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; and 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 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, Hogg in view of 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, Hogg in view of 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, Hogg in view of 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 Hernandez, in further view of Beck et al. (US 2013/0191213 A1), previously cited and hereinafter Beck.
Regarding claim 3, Hogg in view of Hernandez teaches the method of claim 2.
Hogg in view of 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 Hogg in view of 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 Hogg in view of 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 Hogg in view of 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, Hogg in view of 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]).
Hogg in view of 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 Hogg in view of 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 Hogg in view of 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 Hogg in view of 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/Hernandez/Beck teaches the method of claim 4.
Hogg in view of 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 Hogg in view of Hernandez with Beck for the reasons identified above with respect to claim 4.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Hogg/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/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]).
Hogg in view of 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 Hogg in view of 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, and 04/17/2026 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 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, pages 9-10).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Initially, 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).
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, pages 10-11).
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. In this regard, Dr. Whitmire has opined as to how one of ordinary skill in the art would understand and appreciate that which is claimed in light of the teachings of the specification, and has provided evidence of technological improvement that would also be appreciated as such by those of skill in the art. Notably, Dr. Whitmire did not supplement any information not provided by the specification, and has demonstrated relevant expertise. Thus, Applicant respectfully submits that the testimony of Dr. Whitmire has substantial probative value as objective evidence of the eligibility of that which is claimed. Based on the current state of the claims, and the evidence provided in the SMED of Dr. Whitmire, Applicant respectfully submits that independent claims 1, 10, and 21 are eligible for patenting under the Patent Laws (Remarks, page 11).
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. 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, page 11).
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 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 and 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 checkout flow. Hernandez does not disclose or suggest any real-time, device-level adaptation of financing options or dynamic interface generation within an active checkout session. The cited portions of Hernandez describe the use of machine learning to receive profile data and generate loan terms. These teachings relate only to generating static loan parameters at a server and do not involve determining the form or structure for presenting financing options on a user's mobile device in response to ongoing checkout activity. Nor do they teach dynamically modifying the interface for presentation on a small-screen device within a continuous self-checkout workflow. In contrast, the pending claims recite a machine-learning based qualification service that operates in real time to determine both personalized financing options and a form and structure for presentation of those options based on user and transaction context. The claims further recite generating, on a small-screen mobile device, a dynamic interface that presents financing and alternative payment options within the same self-checkout workflow. These features enable an integrated, adaptive, and seamless checkout experience that neither Hogg nor Hernandez teaches or suggests (Remarks, pages 11-12).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Hernandez teaches utilizing machine-learning techniques to receive buyer profile data, including buyer preferences, and data associated with the transaction [i.e. the machine-learning based qualification service further configured to determine personalized financing options based on at least the user information and transaction information], including a total cost of the transaction, to generate the terms of a BNPL loan option [i.e. employing, by a machine-learning based qualification service, machine learning to determine a form and structure for presentation of a financing option based on the user information and transaction context] that is displayed in an interface of a user’s smart phone [i.e. for presentation of a financing option on a communication device of a customer], as well as, automatically determine whether a user is eligible for such a BNPL loan in real-time [i.e. determine in real time] (see Hernandez, Col. 22 Ln. 4-18, Col. 33 Ln. 65-67 & Col. 34 Ln. 1, Col. 27 Ln. 29-33, Col. 12 Ln. 66-67 & Col. 13 Ln. 1-4, and Col. 8 Ln. 44-56). Hernandez utilizes the real-time parameters of the transaction and the buyer to generate and present the terms of the loan option [i.e. a machine-learning based qualification service that operates in real time to determine both personalized financing options and a form and structure for presentation of those options based on user and transaction context]. Additionally, the terms of the load option reading on the form and structure of the financing option is in line with paragraph [0052] of Applicant’s specification.
Additionally, while Hogg discloses “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” and Hernandez is not required to teach the entirety of “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” as the combination of Hogg and Hernandez teach this limitation, Hernandez does indeed teach the entirety of this limitation. Specifically, Hernandez teaches displaying an interface, on a mobile device of a user [i.e. on a screen of the communication device], in response to a user requesting to acquire an item [i.e. within the same self-checkout workflow], this interface displaying a ‘Buy Now’ option is adjacent to a ‘Split into 4 Installments’ option [i.e. a dynamic interface that presents the link to the financing option adjacent to the selectable option for the alternative payment method] (see Hernandez, Col. 20 Ln. 55-65, Col. 27 Ln. 29-33, and Fig. 3A). Hernandez teaches dynamically modifying the interface for presentation on a small-screen device within a continuous self-checkout workflow. Accordingly, the cited references teach the current claims.
Applicant further argues that implementing the claimed system would require significant re-architecture of both Hogg and Hernandez. The combined system would need to support real-time data exchange between a self-checkout application and a credit-extension server, dynamically generate and display financing options on the user's device, and adapt the interface based on live user interactions. Such a configuration is not a predictable or routine modification of the cited art and produces a technological improvement in mobile user experience and transaction efficiency. Accordingly, Applicants respectfully submit 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 13).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As detailed in response to the arguments above, Hogg in view of Hernandez teaches the amended claims; no re-architecture is required to teach the amended features. Accordingly, the cited references teach the current claims.
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. For all the reasons provided above, Applicant respectfully submits that claims 1-17 and 21-23 are presently in condition for allowance (Remarks, page 13).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As detailed in response to the arguments above, Hogg in view of Hernandez teaches 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.
-Kim et al. (US 10,692,140 B1) teaches customizing financing terms.
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