DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in this instant application. Claims 1, 8 and 15 have been amended. Claims 1, 8 and 15 are independent claims reciting method, system and non-transitory computer-readable medium claims. Claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 are respective dependent claims.
This Office Action is a final rejection based on the claim amendments and the remarks filed by the Applicant on 05 NOVEMBER 2025 for its original application of 03 NOV 2022 that is titled: “Systems and Methods for Improved Transaction Platforms”.
Accordingly, amended Claims 1-20 are now being rejected herein.
Specification Objections
Specification’s para [0064] is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0064] of the Specification recites in lines 5-6 a phrase – “……… the machine learning algorithm may determine that a a vehicle’s mileage may have a greater impact …”; which has typographical error in repeating article “a” twice simultaneously. Examiner suggests deleting an “a”.
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.
(NOTE: Latest ‘amendments to the claims’ filed by the Applicant in the on 11/05/2025 are shown as bold and underlined additions, and all deletions may not be shown, or may not be underlined when stricken through. Underlined amendments to the claims that are shown below are from previously submitted claim amendments by the Applicant.)
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more, wherein Claims 1, 8 and 15 are independent payment method, system and non-transitory computer readable medium claims respectively.
Exemplary Analysis.
Claim 1: Ineligible.
The claim recites a series of steps. The claim is directed to a method reciting a series of steps, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1 -- YES).
The claim is analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. The method claim recites the limitations of: receiving, from a user, a selection of a first vehicle from a listing of vehicles presented and first financing information [[]] for a transaction involving [[]] the first vehicle, wherein the first vehicle is included in a vehicle inventory presented via the website, wherein, the inventory of vehicles includes at least 5,000 vehicles with at least 100 down payment options, at least 3500 net trade-in options, at least five payment term options, and at least 50,000 tax locations, and wherein an amount of time required to directly obtain, by the website of the vehicle transaction platform, all possible payment information permutations for vehicles in the vehicle inventory from one or more financial entities would render the website unusable, as the website would be unable to obtain the payment information for all of the vehicles in the vehicle inventory in time to update a user interface website in real-time with payment information; [[]]automatically selecting, based on the selection of the first vehicle, a second vehicle in the vehicle inventory and second financing information associated with the second vehicle, wherein the second vehicle is [[]] selected by the vehicle transaction platform instead of by a selection by the user; sending, data associated with the first vehicle and first financing information and data associated with the second vehicle and second financing information to one or more financial entities; receiving, from the one or more financial entities, first actual payment information for the first vehicle and second actual payment information for the second vehicle; and extrapolating additional payment information for a subset of remaining vehicles within the vehicle inventory. In other words, the claim describes a procedure for improved transaction platforms by determining payment information/s for each vehicle up to three vehicles (per Abstract). These limitations, as drafted, are steps of a method that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations via a method of organizing human activity such as fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk), and/or commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), and/or managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), but for the recitation of generic computer/s and/or computer component/s such as the devices/ mobile devices. These limitations fall under the “certain methods of organizing human activity” group (Step 2A1 -- YES).
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if it is integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements of: a processor and a user interface of a website; and device of a user; receiving, by the processor and from the device of the user at a first time, a search query input to the website; and causing to present, by the processor, at the first time, and via the user interface of the website that remains presented on the user device, a listing of vehicles based on the search query, the listing of vehicles including the first vehicle, the second vehicle, and the subset of remaining vehicles, wherein the first actual payment information is presented along with the listing for the first vehicle and the second actual payment information is presented along with the listing for the second vehicle, and the additional payment information is presented along with the subset of remaining vehicles based on the extrapolation of the first actual payment information and the second actual payment information without providing information about the subset of remaining vehicles to the one or more financial entities, such that the additional payment information is presented to the user in real-time via the user interface of the website as the user browses the website without causing latency that would prevent the user interface of the website from being presented in real-time. These additional elements are not considered to improve the GUI technology or improve the computer itself. The processors, interfaces, user device/s, website/s and the manner in which the information is displayed in the steps are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as generic processors performing generic computer/s functions of processing and displaying data. The side by side listing is just a mode of displaying information without improving the graphical user interface. These generic processors are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer/s and/or computer component/s. 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. Thus, the claim is directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A2 -- NO).
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if there are additional elements in this claim that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas (whether claim provides inventive concept). As discussed with respect to Step 2A2 above, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer/s and/or computer component/s. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer and/or computer components over a network cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Because the additional elements described above were considered to be extra-solution activities in Step 2A, they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field. The disclosure does not provide any indication that these devices (processors and interfaces) are anything other than generic processors and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions (MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II)) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Also, paras [0071]-[0072] and [0076]-[0080] of the Applicant’s own Specification describe ---
{“[0071] FIG. 5 depicts a flow diagram of an illustrative method 500, in accordance with one or more embodiments of the disclosure. At block 502, the method 500 may include receiving, by a processor and from a user, a selection of a first vehicle from a user interface. At block 504, the method 500 may include determining, by the processor and based on the first vehicle, a second vehicle. At block 506, the method 500 may include sending, by the processor, data associated with the first vehicle and data associated with the second vehicle to one or more entities. At block 508, the method 500 may include receiving, by the processor, first payment information for the first vehicle and second payment information for the second vehicle. At block 510, the method 500 may include determining, by the processor and based on the first payment information and the second payment information, third payment information for a third vehicle. At block 512, the method 500 may include causing to present, by the processor, the first payment information, the second payment information, and the third payment information on the user interface. ……………
[0072] In some embodiments, the user interface may be associated with any of the systems described with respect to FIG.I (as well as any other system). For example, a user may view the user internee through a display of a user device 106(1) ... 106(N), the transaction platform 130, etc. In some cases, the information that is presented on the user interface may be determined locally to the particular system that it is presented on. For example, if the user interface is presented on a user device 106( I) ... 106(N), then the processing required to present the information on the user interface may be performed at the user device 106( I) ... 106(N). In some cases, however, this processing may be performed remotely, and the remote system may send an indication of the information to present on the user interface. For example, if the user interface is associated with a user device 106( I)...106(N), the transaction platform 130 may perform the processing and may send to the user device 106( I) ... 106(N) an indication of the information to present on the user interface. In some cases, the processing may occur both locally and remotely. These are just examples of how information may be presented on a user interface, and the information may similarly be presented in any other manner. ………………………………………………. …………………………………………………………
[0076] FIG. 6 depicts a block diagram of an example machine 600 upon which any of one or more techniques (e.g., methods) may be performed, in accordance with one or more example embodiments of the present disclosure. In other embodiments, the machine 600 may operate as a standalone device or may be connected (e.g., networked) to other machines. In a networked deployment, the machine 600 may operate in the capacity of a server machine, a client machine, or both in server-client network environments. In an example, the machine 600 may act as a peer machine in peer-to-peer (P2P) ( or other distributed) network environments. The machine 600 may be a personal computer (PC), a tablet PC, a set-top box (STB), a personal digital assistant (PDA), a mobile telephone, a wearable computer device, a web appliance, a network router, a switch or bridge, or any machine capable of executing instructions (sequential or otherwise) that specify actions to be taken by that machine, such as a base station. Further, while only a single machine is illustrated, the term "machine" shall also be taken to include any collection of machines that individually or jointly execute a set (or multiple sets) of instructions to perform any one or more of the methodologies discussed herein, such as cloud computing, software as a service (SaaS), or other computer cluster configurations. ………………………………………………………………………………………
[0077] Examples, as described herein, may include or may operate on logic or a number of components, modules, or mechanisms. Modules are tangible entities (e.g., hardware) capable of performing specified operations when operating. A module includes hardware. In an example, the hardware may be specifically configured to carry out a specific operation (e.g., hardwired). In another example, the hardware may include configurable execution units (e.g., transistors, circuits, etc.) and a computer-readable medium containing instructions where the instructions configure the execution units to carry out a specific operation when in operation. The configuring may occur under the direction of the executions units or a loading mechanism. Accordingly, the execution units are communicatively coupled to the computer-readable medium when the device is operating. In this example, the execution units may be a member of more than one module. For example, under operation, the execution units may be configured by a first set of instructions to implement a first module at one point in time and reconfigured by a second set of instructions to implement a second module at a second point in time. ……………………………………………….…………………..
[0078] The machine (e.g., computer system) 600 may include a hardware processor 602 (e.g., a central processing unit (CPU), a graphics processing unit (GPU), a hardware processor core, or any combination thereof), a main memory 604 and a static memory 606, some or all of which may communicate with each other via an interlink (e.g., bus) 608. The machine 600 may further include a power management device 632, a graphics display device 610, an alphanumeric input device 612 (e.g., a keyboard), and a user interface (UI) navigation device 614 (e.g., a mouse). In an example, the graphics display device 610, alphanumeric input device 612, and UI navigation device 614 may be a touch screen display. The machine 600 may additionally include a storage device (i.e., drive unit) 616, a signal generation device 618 (not shown) (e.g., a speaker), a work assessment device 619 (not shown), a network interface device/transceiver 620 coupled to antenna(s) 630, and one or more sensors 628, such as a global positioning system (GPS) sensor, a compass, an accelerometer, or other sensor. The machine 600 may include an output controller 634, such as a serial (e.g., universal serial bus (USB), parallel, or other wired or wireless (e.g., infrared (IR), near field communication (NFC), etc.) connection to communicate with or control one or more peripheral devices (e.g., a printer, a card reader, etc.)). …………………………………………………………………….…………………..
[0079] The storage device 616 may include a machine- readable medium 622 on which is stored one or more sets of data structures or instructions 624 ( e.g., software) embodying or utilized by any one or more of the techniques or functions described herein. The instructions 624 may also reside, completely or at least partially, within the main memory 604, within the static memory 606, or within the hardware processor 602 during execution thereof by the machine 600. In an example, one or any combination of the hardware processor 602, the main memory 604, the static memory 606, or the storage device 616 may constitute machine-readable media. ………………………………….…….
[0080] While the machine-readable medium 622 is illustrated as a single medium, the term machine-readable medium" may include a single medium, or multiple media (e.g., a centralized or distributed database, and/or associated caches and servers) configured to store the one or more instructions 624. The instructions 624 may be used to perform any of the operations described herein (for example, with respect to FIGS. 2A-2D, 5, or otherwise).”} ---
and indicate that the concept described by the extra-solution additional elements is conventional. Accordingly, a conclusion that the aforementioned extra-solution additional elements are well-understood, routine and conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer options 2 and 3, respectively.
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea (Step 2B -- NO), and the claim is not patent eligible.
The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of the invention including independent system Claim 8 and independent non-transitory computer-readable medium Claim 15, which perform the steps similar to those of the independent method Claim 1. Furthermore, the limitations of dependent method Claims 2-7, further narrow the independent method Claim 1 with additional steps and limitations (e.g., applying ‘updates’ --- status of surroundings; probability of position; a results ‘merger’; and degree of divergence calculation/determiner), and do not resolve the issues raised in rejection of the independent method Claim 1. Similarly, dependent system Claims 9-14 and dependent non-transitory computer-readable medium Claims 16-20 also further narrow their independent Claims 8 and 15 respectively, which are rejected as ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. 101 based upon the same analysis.
Therefore, said Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks and claim amendments dated 05 NOVEMBER 2025 with respect to the rejection of amended Claims 1-20 have been carefully considered, but they do not put this application in a condition for allowance.
Applicant's arguments with respect to 35 USC §101 directed to non-statutory subject matter been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Thus, the rejection of amended Claims 1-20, as described above, is being maintained herein under 35 USC 101 with some modifications in this Office Action to reflect the new claim amendments. Examiner incorporates herein the response to arguments from the previous office actions.
The proposed amendments do not overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection. Applicant amended the claims to include the above underlined claim limitations. The same updated analysis based on the new 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) applies to the newly added claimed limitations as discussed above and in the previous office action rejections. The claims apply the abstract idea on the computer system at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
What Applicant describes here is how any generic computer process data without stating how or if this transformation is intended to in some way improves the function of the computer itself.
Under the 2019 PEG, Step 2A, prong two, integration into a practical application requires an additional element(s) or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application are those that are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.-see MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computer arrangement. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Hence, the claims as a whole are not integrated into a practical application.
Examiner respectfully disagrees that the claims are directed to an improvement computer technology. As found by the courts “In order for the addition of a machine to impose a meaningful limit on the scope of a claim, it must play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed, rather than function solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be achieved more quickly . . ..” SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 601 F.3d 1319, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2010); see also Content Extraction, 2013 WL 3964909, at *12 (“the mere use of a computer to more quickly and efficiently . . . accomplish a given task does not create meaningful limitation on an otherwise abstract and wide-ranging concept”).
The claims here are not directed to a specific improvement to computer functionality nor an inventive solution to any computer specific problem. Also, limiting the use of an abstract idea “‘to a particular technological environment’ does not confer patent eligibility as this cannot be considered an improvement to computer or technology and so cannot be “significantly more.”
The claims as a whole do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are generic computer components claimed to perform their basic functions. The processor is a general-purpose processor that performs general-purpose functions. The recitation of the claimed limitations amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer (using the processor as a tool to implement the abstract idea). Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, each step of the process performs purely generic computer functions. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. The claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are simply a generic recitation of a computer processor performing its generic computer functions. Accordingly, claims are ineligible.
Conclusion
Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See at least MPEP §706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon, listed in Form 892, that is considered pertinent to the Applicant's disclosure and review for not traversing already issued patents and/or claimed inventions by the claims of the current invention of the Applicant.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Sanjeev Malhotra whose telephone number is (571) 272-7292. The Examiner can normally be reached during Monday-Friday between 8:30-17:00 hours on a Flexible schedule.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, the Applicant is encouraged to contact the Examiner directly.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s
supervisor, Abhishek Vyas, can be reached on (571) 270-1836. The facsimile/fax phone number for the organization, where this application or proceeding is assigned, is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA)
or 571-272-1000.
Electronic Communications
Prior to initiating the first e-mail correspondence with an Examiner, Applicant is
responsible for filing a written statement with the USPTO in accordance with MPEP §502.03(II). All received e-mail messages including e-mail attachments shall be placed into this application’s record. The Examiner’s e-mail address is provided below at the end of this Office Action.
/S.M./
Examiner, Art Unit 3691
sanjeev.malhotra@uspto.gov
/HANI M KAZIMI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691