DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3, 6-7, and 12 are currently amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/10/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
35 USC 101
Applicant's arguments and amendments filed 02/16/2026 with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the claim limitations are not recite a judicial exception, per se, and further do not recite “certain methods of organizing human activity” as they recite hardware components such as “servers” that “modify instructions” and that the computing device “executes the modified instructions”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In this current and previous office action, Examiner identified which specific limitations were directed to the abstract idea. It is noted that not every limitation of a claim need be directed to the abstract idea in order form the claim to recite/be directed to an abstract idea. The claims are directed to the abstract idea of providing information regarding an item and at least one of a total amount, the term, or the term amount that may be modified as a customized offer. Specifically, the claims recite the abstract idea of receive a user provided item identifier (ID) indicative of an item suitable for an instalment contract, wherein the item ID is one of a plurality of item IDs, wherein each item ID of the plurality of item IDs uniquely identifies a respective item of a plurality of items including the item; and communicate an indication of the item ID; and receive the communicate indication of the item ID; compare in response to receiving the communicated indication of the item ID, the indication of the item ID with the item IDs of a plurality of potential items represented by an item storehouse, wherein each potential item is associated with a potential element; identify, based on the comparison, a concurrent item of the plurality of potential items that is associated with the item and an element that is associated with the concurrent item, the element indicative of at least one of a total amount, a term, or a term amount; and communicate a representation of the element that is associated with the concurrent item, wherein the representation of the element that is associated with the concurrent item is configured such that the at least one of the total amount, the term, or the term amount are presented on a display that is associated with the concurrent item; further: receive, input modifying at least one of the total amount, the term, or the term amount; and communicate based on the input indications of the modified at least one of the total amount, the term, or the term amount, based on the indications of the modified at least one of the total amount, the term, or the term amount, modify instructions to generate modified instructions; and transmit the modified instructions, and render on the display the modified at least one of the total amount, the term, or the term amount as a customized offer. These recited limitations fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” grouping of abstract ideas as it relates to commercial interactions of sales activities or behaviors. Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea. Regarding page 5 of Applicant’s arguments, Examiner notes that this is not a ‘close call’ regarding eligibility.
Starting on page 5, Applicant argues that that the additional elements integrate any recite judicial exception into a practical application because they provide details of how a solution to a particular problem in existing technology is accomplished and reflect an improvement in the functioning of a technology or technical field by reciting additional elements that include: “processors, memories, a first API that ‘automatically communicates’ to a second server API ‘based on the input, indications of the modified at least one of the total amount, the term, or the term amount,’, ‘wherein the second server API is configured to, based on the indications of the modified at least one of the total amount, the term, or the term amount, modify instructions of the executable element to generate modified instructions of the executable element,’ and ‘wherein the first API is further configured to: execute the modified instructions of the executable element to render the GUI int eh browser on a display in real-time to include the modified at least one of the total amount, the term, or the erm amount as a customized offer in association with the concurrent item, wherein the GUI is rendered in real-time without loading a page associated with the concurrent item.’” . Applicant argues that doing so increases availability of the system, the network, reduce computational resources used when rendering the GUI, and reduce energy consumption. . Applicant specifically recites to paragraph [0046] of the specification which states “as a webpage loads, one or more variable in any combination (i.e. model code, term, amount, credit score, etc.) are transmitted to a third-party server and one or more variables related to subsidized financing (i.e., rate, payment, total cost, terms etc.) are returned and rendered on the webpage in real time” and paragraph [0090] which states “embodiments may allow… the suer to directly enter or communicate the item ID to the franchise application programming interface 232 without visiting a webpage presenting the item for display.”
These arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. MPEP 216.04(d)(1). The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art, and conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. Id.
In this case, Applicant’s specification provides no explanation of an improvement to the functioning of a computer to other technology. Rather, the claims focus “on a process that qualifies as an ‘abstract idea’ for which computers are merely invoked as a tool”. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016) citing Enfish at 1327, 1336. This is reflected in paragraphs [0002]-[0004] of Applicant’s specification, which describe Applicant’s claimed invention as directed toward solving a need for a system for identifying and promoting financing opportunities available to a potential consumer while viewing an item of interest. While the specification at paragraph [0046] states that as “a webpage loads, one or more variable in any combination (i.e. model code, term, amount, credit score, etc.) are transmitted to a third-party server and one or more variables related to subsidized financing (i.e., rate, payment, total cost, terms etc.) are returned and rendered on the webpage in real time,” this merely represents a conclusory statement. The statements made in Applicant’s specification, specifically at paragraphs [0027]-[0030], [0037]-[0038], [0042], [0052], [0054], [0062]-[0065], do not provide any detail regarding how the claimed invention is providing any improvement to the functioning of the computer/other technology, thereby making the statements merely conclusory.
Applicants stated improvements are not actually technical improvements. Although the claims include computer technology such as a system for interfacing with a foreign programming interface, concurrent interactive element, at least one computer comprising one or more processors and memory device, calculator interface, second server, a second server API, interactive elements, executable elements, and a display in a GUI, such elements are merely peripherally incorporated in order to implement the abstract idea. This is unlike the improvements recognized by the Courts in cases such as Enfish, Core Wireless, and McRO. Unlike these precedential cases, neither the specification nor the claims of the instant invention identify such a specific improvement to computer capabilities. The instant claims are not directed to improving “the existing technological process” but are directed to improving the commercial task of providing an item with a customized offer including a modified at least one of total amount, the term, or the term amount. The claimed process, while arguably resulting in more financing opportunities for a consumer, is not providing any improvement to another technology or technical field. For example, there is no improvement to the system for interfacing with a foreign programming interface, concurrent interactive element, at least one computer comprising one or more processors and memory device, calculator interface, second server, a second server API, interactive elements, executable elements, and a display in a GUI. While these additional elements are used, it is the type of data displayed that is an improvement. Additionally, there has been no improvement to the interfaces or elements. Rather, the focus is on what type of data may be provided and modified for a customized offer as opposed to how the hardware components accomplish that. The claimed process is utilizing known computing systems, interfaces, elements, and servers, etc. to improve what financing options may be available and customized for a consumer, e.g., commercial interactions. As such, the claims do not recite specific technological improvements and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Applicant argues that the claims also apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Here, the additional elements/combination of additional elements do not meaningfully limit the abstract idea of identifying and generating financing opportunities to potential customers. The additional elements implemented and recited by Applicant in pages 8-9 of the Remarks do not meaningfully limit the abstract idea because they merely linked the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., “implementation via computers”).
Applicant argues that the claims include specific limitations that are not well-understood, routine, or conventional activity. Examiner respectfully disagrees with this argument. Examiner notes that that the previous 35 USC 101 rejection of 06/11/2025 and the current rejection below do not assert that the claims fail Step 2A Prong 2 for adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. Therefore, in Step 2B the claims were not asserted to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not applicable to the rejection made.
Applicant argues that the claims specify a particular arrangement of components that interact in a non-generic manner to achieve the desired results and provide technical solution to problem of dynamically presenting interactive financial elements in a user interface. Applicant further argues that the claims “taken together as an ordered combination, recite an invention that is not merely the routine or conventional” use of client-server architectures. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The current invention is being used to solve the non-technical problem of identifying financing options for customized offer. The invention is not taking prior art client-server architectures or interfaces/elements and making them more dynamic and efficient. While paragraph [0090] discloses that a user may be able to directly enter or communicate the item ID to the franchise application programming interface without visiting a webpage presenting the item for display, these statements are merely conclusory. There is nothing to suggest that there has been some sort of unconventional or advantageous technique.
For at least these reasons, Examiner maintains the previous 35 USC 101 rejection.
35 USC 103
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, filed 02/16/2026, with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 103 rejection of 12/17/2025 has been withdrawn.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1, as exemplary, recites the abstract idea of receive viewing instructions; execute the viewing instructions to present an item; receive an item identifier (ID) indicative of an item suitable for an instalment contract, wherein the item ID is one of a plurality of item IDs, wherein each item ID of the plurality of item IDs uniquely identifies a respective item of a plurality of items including the item; and communicate an indication of the item ID; and receive the communicate indication of the item ID; compare in response to receiving the communicated indication of the item ID, the indication of the item ID with the item IDs of a plurality of potential items represented by an item storehouse, wherein each potential item is associated with a potential element; identify, based on the comparison, a concurrent item of the plurality of potential items that is associated with the item and an element that is associated with the concurrent item, the element indicative of at least one of a total amount, a term, or a term amount; and communicate a representation of the element that is associated with the concurrent item, wherein the representation of the element that is associated with the concurrent item is configured such that the at least one of the total amount, the term, or the term amount are presented on a display that is associated with the concurrent item; further: receive the concurrent item, receive, input modifying at least one of the total amount, the term, or the term amount; and communicate based on the input indications of the modified at least one of the total amount, the term, or the term amount, based on the indications of the modified at least one of the total amount, the term, or the term amount, modify instructions to generate modified instructions; and transmit the modified instructions, and render on the display the modified at least one of the total amount, the term, or the term amount as a customized offer in association with the concurrent item.
These recited limitations fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” grouping of abstract ideas as it relates to commercial interactions of sales activities or behaviors. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because in particular, the claims recite a system for interfacing with a foreign programming interface to receive a concurrent interactive element, at least one computer including one or more processors and at least one of a memory device and a non-transitory storage device, a first API to perform receiving a user provided item ID, a server, a web page, a computing device, another server, communicating an indication of the item ID, and retrieving a representation of an interactive element, a second server application programming interface that receives the communication indication of the item ID, compares the ID with potential items associated with potential interactive element, identifying a concurrent item and an interactive element associated with the concurrent item indicative of an executable element, communicate a representation of the interactive element, presenting information/modified information on a display in a GUI, a page associated with the concurrent item. The additional elements in all the steps are merely transmitting and receiving information. They are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic device performing generic computer functions of transmitting and receiving information) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic device. Accordingly, even in combination, 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.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In this case, as noted above, the additional elements recited in independent claim 1 are recited and described in a generic manner merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of representative claim 1 do not add anything that is not already present when they are considered individually. In Alice, the court considered the additional elements “as an ordered combination,” and determined that “the computer components...‘ad[d] nothing. ..that is not already present when the steps are considered separately’... [and] [v]iewed as a whole...[the] claims simply recite intermediated settlement as performed by a generic computer.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217, (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1972). Similarly, when viewed as a whole, representative claim 1 simply conveys the abstract idea itself facilitated by generic computing components. Therefore, under Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, there are no meaningful limitations in representative claim 1 that transforms the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
As such, representative claim 1 is ineligible.
Dependent Claim 2 does not aid in the eligibility of independent claim 1. For example, claim 2 merely further defines the abstract limitations of claim 1. Dependent claim 2 does not recite additional elements supplemental those recited in claim 1. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the reasons described above with respect to claim 1. Thus, dependent claim 2 is also ineligible.
Independent claim 3 recites the same abstract idea represented in representative claim 1. Independent Claim 3 does not recite any additional elements supplemental to those of claim 1. The additional elements in Independent claim 3 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the reasons described above with respect to claim 1.
Dependent claims 4-20 do not aid in the eligibility of claim 3. For example, claims 4-16 merely further define the abstract limitations of claim 3. Furthermore, it is noted that certain dependent claims include additional elements supplemental to those recited in independent claim 3: another server and a server (claim 12). However, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. These additional elements are merely generic elements and are likewise described in a generic manner in Applicant’s specification. Additionally, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 4-11 and 13-20 do not recite additional elements supplemental those recited in claim 3. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the reasons described above with respect to claim 3.
Thus, dependent claims 4-20 are also ineligible.
Subject Matter Free From Prior Art
Claims 1 and 3 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action. Claims 2 and 4-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of subject matter free from prior art:
The Examiner hereby asserts that the totality of the evidence neither anticipates nor renders obvious the particular combination of elements as claimed. That is, the Examiner emphasizes the claims as a whole and hereby asserts that the totality of the evidence fails to set forth, either explicitly or implicitly, an appropriate rationale for combining or otherwise modifying the available prior art to arrive at the claimed invention. The combination of features as claimed would not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because any combination of the evidence at hand to reach the combination of features as claimed would require a substantial reconstruction of Applicant’s claimed invention relying on improper hindsight bias. Claim limitations of claim 1 found to be allowable either alone or in combination include:
A first API configured to: receive, at a computing device, viewing instructions store don a server, execute at the computing device, the viewing instructions to present, in a browser, an item in a web page….; automatically communicate, to a second server, an indication of the item ID; and a second server API of the second server configured to: …. Identify, based on the comparison, a concurrent item of the plurality of potential items that is associated with the item and an interactive element that is associated with the concurrent item, the interactive element indicative of an executable element….; and communicate, to the computing device via the first API, a representation of the interactive element….wherein the representation of the interactive element comprises an indication of a storage location of another server;…. Automatically communicate to the second server API based on the input, indications of the modified at least one of the total amount, the term, or the term amount, wherein the first API is further configured to: execute the modified instructions of the executable element to render the GUI in the browser on a display in real-time to include ethe modified at least one of the total amount, the term, or the term amount as a customize doffer in association with the concurrent item, wherein the GUI is rendered in real-time without loading a page associated with the concurrent item.
One piece of pertinent prior art is Hong et al. (US 2022/0261869) disclosing an interface configured to (See at least Fig. 1B-1E disclosing user calculator interface for receiving product item IDs and additional order/payment information along with user interface elements, paragraph [0075] disclosing user interface communicatively coupled to the server) receive, from a computing device, a user provided item identifier ID indicative of an item, wherein the item ID is one of a plurality of item IDs, wherein each item ID of the plurality of item IDs uniquely identifies a respective item of a plurality of items including the item; (See at least paragraph [0027]-[0028] disclosing product displayed, [0066] disclosing product listings are generated and maintained by the website, product listing may be listed or stored by systems or data structures…the product listing may include several elements associated with the products including, price, pictures, selectable options, model number or nay other information associated with one or more products in the product listing, [0067]-[0075] disclosing server executing software instructions stored in memory to operate the user interface and generate accurate identifications of a plurality of products, paragraph [0092] disclosing product identifier for products, Fig. 1B disclosing enter in item ID for search and display products, Fig. 1C disclosing an identifier associated with the viewed item “item number”) communicate, to a second server, an indication of the item ID; and (See at least paragraph [0091]-[0092] disclosing processor at server retrieves product identifiers) a second server application programming interface (API) configured to: (See at least paragraph [0091] disclosing server processor for executing process) receive the communicated indication of the item ID; (See at least paragraph [0091]-[0092] disclosing processor at server retrieves product identifiers) compare, in response to receiving the communicated indication of the item ID, the indication of the item ID with the item IDs of a plurality of potential items represented by an item storehouse (See at least paragraph [0101]-[0102] disclosing various comparisons between product identifier and one or more second product identifiers), wherein each potential item is associated with a potential interactive element; (See at least Fig. 1C and paragraph [0011] & [0028] disclosing additional recommended products included through interactive user interface elements) identify, based on the comparison, a concurrent item of the plurality of potential items that is associated with the item and an interactive element that is associated with the concurrent item, the interactive element indicative of an executable element and at least one of a total amount, a term, or a term amount; and (See at least paragraph [0101]-[0103] disclosing similarity match determined for second product identifier, [0027]-[0029] disclosing interactive user interface elements including prices for products) communicate, to the computing device, a representation of the interactive element that is associated with the concurrent item, (See at least Fig. 1C, paragraphs [011], [0028], & [0103] disclosing additional recommended products included through interactive user interface elements) wherein the representation of the interactive element that is associated with the concurrent item is configured such that the executable element and at least one of the total amount, the term, or the term amount are presented on a display in a graphical user interface (GUI) comprising the calculator interface utilizing the representation of the interactive element that is associated with the concurrent item.(See at least paragraph [0067]-[0075] disclosing server executing software instructions stored in memory to operate the user interface).
Another piece of pertinent prior art is Nagla (US 2016/0189260) disclosing the user provided item being suitable for an instalment contract (See at least paragraphs [011] & [0226] disclosing product includes monthly installment payments, [0070], [0095]).
Another piece of pertinent prior art is Fang et al. (US 2023/0027379) disclosing wherein the interface is further configured to: receive, via the interactive element in the GUI, input modifying at least one of the total amount, the term, or the term amount; and automatically communicate, to the second server based on the input, indications of the modified at least one of the total amount, the term, or the term amount, wherein the second server API is configured to: based on the indications of the modified at least one of the total amount, the term, or the term amount, modify instructions of the executable element to generate modified instructions of the executable element and transmit, to the computing device, the modified one or more instructions of the executable element, and wherein the calculator interface is further configured to: execute the modified instructions of the executable element to render the GUI on a display in real-time to include the modified at least one of the total amount, the term, or the term amount as a customized offer (See at least paragraph [0052] disclosing as shown in Fig. 3, a first user (user 1) interacts with financing elements displayed on a GUI. The user interactions, for example, may include a customer modifying an initial offer or term for the financing from a lender. The modifying may subsequently provide a series of term options higher/lower in a standardized range (e.g., 12 month increments). A suer interacting with this graphic can choose a specific term and see a resulting recalculation of other terms associated with this transaction at the new term, [0059] disclosing as a non-limiting example with regards to Figs. 1-7 one or more processes described with respect to Fig. 6 may be performed by a mobile device (e.g., client device 102 of Fig. 1) or a server (e.g., part of cloud processing systems 106 of Fig. 1) for analyzing financial purchase information associated with user interaction with graphically displayed financing elements. In embodiment 600, client device 102 and/or the server may execute code in memory to perform certain steps associated with Figs. 1-7. The GUI application determines whether the requested data is stored locally (e.g., mobile device memory) or remotely (e.g., cloud-based financial platform), [0062]-[0063] disclosing modifying the initial transaction criteria, [00770]-[0077] disclosing executing modified instructions and customized options are shown in a graphical format to the user, Fig. 7 disclosing initial offer terms, and modified input).
Another piece of pertinent prior art is NPL "Buy Now, Pay Later: Survey Evidence of Consumer Adoption and Attitudes" (Akana, T., Buy Now, Pay Later: Survey Evidence of Consumer Adoption and Attitudes, June 2022, FRB CFI Philadelphia, Consumer Finance Institute Discussion Paper Series, DP 22-02, pgs. 1-28.) disclosing various BNPL options offered to customers and user satisfaction with them.
However, none of these pieces of prior art nor any others expressly provide for A first API configured to: receive, at a computing device, viewing instructions store don a server, execute at the computing device, the viewing instructions to present, in a browser, an item in a web page….; automatically communicate, to a second server, an indication of the item ID; and a second server API of the second server configured to: …. Identify, based on the comparison, a concurrent item of the plurality of potential items that is associated with the item and an interactive element that is associated with the concurrent item, the interactive element indicative of an executable element….; and communicate, to the computing device via the first API, a representation of the interactive element….wherein the representation of the interactive element comprises an indication of a storage location of another server;…. Automatically communicate to the second server API based on the input, indications of the modified at least one of the total amount, the term, or the term amount, wherein the first API is further configured to: execute the modified instructions of the executable element to render the GUI in the browser on a display in real-time to include ethe modified at least one of the total amount, the term, or the term amount as a customize doffer in association with the concurrent item, wherein the GUI is rendered in real-time without loading a page associated with the concurrent item.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRITTANY E BARGEON whose telephone number is (571)272-2861. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am to 6:00pm.
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, Jeffrey A Smith can be reached at (571) 272-6763. 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.
/B.E.B/Examiner, Art Unit 3688
/Jeffrey A. Smith/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights