DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Amendments filed on 10/30/2025.
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 10/30/2025, has been entered. Claims 1, 10, and 21 have been amended.
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, 10, and 21 read “the service” but should likely read “the machine-learning based qualification service”
Claim 2-9, 11-17 and 21-23 inherits the deficiencies noted in claims 1, 10, and 21, respectively, and are therefore objected to the same basis.
-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 § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 10 recite “a small-screen mobile device.” It is unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art whether the small-screen mobile device is the same device as the previously introduced “communication device of the user.” In light of paragraph [0029] of Applicant’s spec, Examiner interprets “a small-screen mobile device” as being the same device as the “communication device of the user,” and accordingly as “wherein the instructions generate, on the communication device of the user, a dynamic interface … wherein the communication device of the user is a small-screen mobile device.”
Claim 2-9 and 11-17 inherits the deficiencies noted in claims 1 and 10, respectively, and are therefore rejected the same basis.
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 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 small-screen mobile 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
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 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 small-screen mobile 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 small-screen mobile 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 small-screen mobile 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 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 small-screen mobile 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
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 small-screen mobile device, a dynamic interface, and the same self-checkout workflow 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 small-screen mobile device, a dynamic interface, and the same self-checkout workflow, 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 claims2-9, 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 small-screen mobile 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 small-screen 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 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]).
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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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, 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, te