DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive the amendment filed 01/08/2026.
Claims 2, 8, 12, and 18 have been cancelled.
Claims 1, 3-7, 9-11, 13-17, 19, and 20 have been examined and stand rejected under 35 USC § 101 as detailed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues #1:
Step 2A: Claim 1 is Not Directed to an Abstract Idea
Even if claim 1 can be said to recite one or more abstract ideas (which is not conceded by the Applicant), the Applicant submits that claim 1, as a whole, integrates the recited features into a practical application. In particular, the Applicant submits that claim 1 is eligible under Prong Two of Step 2A of USPTO's 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance ("2019 PEG").
Claim 1 recites the elements of: detect a trigger action initiated on a client device associated with an entity based on input received via a first user interface on the client device; in response to detecting the trigger action, selectively enable, via the first user interface, first user interface elements corresponding to one or more preferred rates of resource borrowing; in response to receiving the dealer lead input, cause to be controllably enabled, on a second user interface displayed on a computing device associated with the identified dealer of the dealer lead input, user interface elements corresponding to resource request parameter data, the controllably enabling including: receiving, via the second user interface, a request to convert the dealer lead input to a resource request in connection with the selected vehicle; authorizing the computing device for access to the first preferred rate of resource borrowing for the resource request based on verifying that the resource request is associated with the dealer lead input; and enabling, via the second user interface, selection of a second user interface element corresponding to the first preferred rate of resource borrowing for generation of the resource request using the second user interface based on changing a visibility status of the second user interface element.
These elements of claim 1 represent improvements to a computing system for controlling a plurality of connected user interfaces, namely, controllably displaying/enabling user interface elements on user interfaces across multiple different computing devices based on detecting trigger actions (e.g., receiving a dealer lead input) via one of the user interfaces. More particularly, the user interface elements of a second user interface on a dealer computing device are selectively enabled based on input of a "dealer lead" detected on a first user interface on a client computing device that is "linked" to the second user interface. These claim elements provide a connection between managing user interfaces that are accessed along different channels and detection of events that are based on user inputs across the different user interfaces. The claimed system facilitates maintaining dynamically updated user interfaces on multiple computing devices based on persistent monitoring of trigger actions detected on a first user interface, identities of users interacting with multiple connected user interfaces, and user selections of selectively enabled user interface elements.
The above-identified elements of claim 1 do not merely link the features of claim 1 to a technical environment, but instead add a meaningful limitation in that they provide technical aspects of a solution implemented by a processor for (1) monitoring user input for selecting UI elements on a first user interface, (2) authorizing a computing system associated with an identified dealer for access to a resource request parameter of a new resource request based on verification of association between the resource request and a dealer lead input, and (3) dynamically updating and configuring a second connected user interface to selectively enable UI elements in a resource request generation process. The claimed system provides technical advantages of updating and configuring, in real-time, related user interfaces to control presentation of actuatable user interface elements. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that these claim elements, in combination with the other claim limitations, reflect technical advantages of enhancements to a computer system for controlling connected user interfaces which may be used for facilitating back-end processing of dealer lead inputs inputted via a first user interface of a client computing device and generation of resource requests by a selected dealer computing device via a separate but connected second user interface.
Examiners response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, under Step 2A the claims do recite an abstract idea, as the claims are directed towards sending and receiving data in order to facilitate allowing a user to select a preferred rate of borrowing and generate a request for the borrowing based a selection of the vehicle by the user. With respect to detecting the trigger action, a trigger action is defined in [0107] of the specification as “Examples of trigger actions which may be detected by the server include, but are not limited to: receiving via the client device a pre-qualification request for qualifying to borrow a first quantity of resources from a resource lender entity…”, this is merely receiving and analyzing information for commercial and legal interactions, and aside from using the client device to send the request and receive the selection via the interface, the trigger action is akin to providing the information needed for the sales activity for acquiring a loan to purchase a product. Using generic components to (1) monitoring user input for selecting UI elements on a first user interface, (2) authorizing a computing system associated with an identified dealer for access to a resource request parameter of a new resource request based on verification of association between the resource request and a dealer lead input, and (3) dynamically updating and configuring a second connected user interface to selectively enable UI elements in a resource request generation process is not a technical improvement. Monitoring user input of data is akin to sending and receiving data over the network and a Web browser’s back and forward button functionality, Internet Patent Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015), authorizing another computer access to data is mere instructions to apply the idea for sending and receiving data over the network and akin to Restricting public access to media by requiring a consumer to view an advertisement, Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716-17, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1755-56 (Fed. Cir. 2014);, and dynamically updating and configuring a second connected user interface to selectively enable UI elements in a resource request generation process is akin to Generating restaurant menus with functionally claimed features, Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1245, 120 USPQ2d at 1857;, where the features related to types of ordering were found to be insignificant extra-solution activity and Requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370-71, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1642 (Fed. Cir. 2015);, and Generating a second menu from a first menu and sending the second menu to another location as performed by generic computer components, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1243-44, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1855-57 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and therefor there limitations do not amount a technical improvement or a practical application as the claims are tailoring content on the interfaces and essentially sending the GUIs akin to menus from one location to another are not an improvement as shown in the cited Court decisions from MPEP 2106 and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the rather the claims are merely invoking the computers as tools for performing the abstract process similar to requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370-71, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1642 (Fed. Cir. 2015);.
Applicant argues #2:
Step 2B: Claim 1 provides an inventive concept
This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to "significantly more" than the alleged exception. The Applicant submits that claim 1 recites elements which, in combination, amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. That is, even if claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea (which is not conceded by the Applicant) under step 2A, the additional elements in combination provide an inventive concept.
As described above, claim 1 includes: detect a trigger action initiated on a client device associated with an entity based on input received via a first user interface on the client device; in response to detecting the trigger action, selectively enable, via the first user interface, first user interface elements corresponding to one or more preferred rates of resource borrowing; in response to receiving the dealer lead input, cause to be controllably enabled, on a second user interface displayed on a computing device associated with the identified dealer of the dealer lead input, user interface elements corresponding to resource request parameter data, the controllably enabling including: receiving, via the second user interface, a request to convert the dealer lead input to a resource request in connection with the selected vehicle; authorizing the computing device for access to the first preferred rate of resource borrowing for the resource request based on verifying that the resource request is associated with the dealer lead input; and enabling, via the second user interface, selection of a second user interface element corresponding to the first preferred rate of resource borrowing for generation of the resource request using the second user interface based on changing a visibility status of the second user interface element.
Claim 1 sets forth an improved system for real-time control of user interfaces. The combination of steps recited in the claim is not routine or conventional activity in the field of user interface management. In particular, the limitations in claim 1 are not considered to be insignificant. The totality of the operations act in concert to improve technical fields, specifically the fields of input processing and control of UI elements on user interfaces. The operations, taken as a combination, allow for efficiencies for managing separate but connected user interfaces to selectively enable display data based on identities of users interacting with the user interfaces. Claim 1, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than one or more alleged abstract ideas.
For at least the above reasons, the Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1 is patent eligible. For similar reasons, independent claim 1, which contains similar features as claim 1, is also eligible, as are all pending dependent claims.
Examiners response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, the Examiner fails to see how the claims amount to a technical improvement as MPEP 2106 provides Court decision similar to the instant application where the claims were found to be no more than invoking the computers as tools and not an improvement, as shown Generating restaurant menus with functionally claimed features, Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1245, 120 USPQ2d at 1857;, where the features related to types of ordering were found to be insignificant extra-solution activity and Requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370-71, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1642 (Fed. Cir. 2015);, and Generating a second menu from a first menu and sending the second menu to another location as performed by generic computer components, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1243-44, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1855-57 (Fed. Cir. 2016);, similar to the instant application as the claims are tailoring content on the interfaces and essentially sending the GUIs akin to menus from one location to another to perform the abstract idea for allowing a user to select a preferred rate of borrowing and generate a request for the borrowing based a selection of the vehicle by the user with a dealer, merely invoking the computers as tools for performing the abstract process similar to requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370-71, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1642 (Fed. Cir. 2015);. As explained in the rejection, controlling and enabling the selectable elements on the first and second user interfaces based on the user’s selections amount to sending and receiving data between computers over a network, which courts have recognized to be insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine and conventional (see MPEP § 2106.05(g), § 2106.05(d)(II)(i) and cases cited therein.
For the reasons above, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the 101 rejection is hereby maintained.
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, 3-7, 9-11, 13-17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, and fails step 2 of the analysis because the focus of the claims is not on the devices themselves or a practical application but rather directed towards an abstract idea, the analysis is provided below.
Step 1 (Statutory Categories) - The claims pass step 1 of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106(III)) as the claims are directed towards systems, and methods.
Step 2A – Prong One (Do the claims recite an abstract idea?)
Claims 1 and 11 recite an idea, in part, by:
detect a trigger action associated with an entity based on input received via a first user;
in response to detecting the trigger action, selectively enable one or more preferred rates of resource borrowing;
receive a dealer lead input indicating a selection of a vehicle, a selection of a first preferred rate of resource borrowing, and an identifier of a dealer for the selected vehicle; and
in response to receiving the dealer lead input, controllably enable a second user associated with the identified dealer lead input, resource request parameter data, including:
receiving, a request to convert the dealer lead input to generate a resource request in connection with the selected vehicle;
authorizing access to the first preferred rate of resource borrowing for the resource request based on verifying that the resource request is converted from the dealer lead input;
enabling selection of the first preferred rate of resource borrowing for generation of the resource request based on changing a visibility status.
Claims 7 and 17 recite an idea, in part, by:
generating a first code associated with one or more preferred rates of resource borrowing;
detect a trigger action initiated associated with an entity based on input received;
in response to detecting the trigger action, selectively enable the first code corresponding to the one or more preferred rates of resource borrowing;
receiving a dealer lead input indicating a selection of a vehicle, a selection of a first preferred rate of resource borrowing, and an identifier of a dealer for the selected vehicle;
in response to receiving the dealer lead input, cause to be controllably enabled resource request parameter data, including:
providing, to the identified dealer of the dealer lead input, the first code;
receiving a request to convert the dealer lead input to generate a resource request in connection with the selected vehicle;
authorizing access to the first preferred rate of resource borrowing for the resource request based on verifying that the resource request is associated with the dealer lead input;
enabling selection of the first preferred rate for generation of the resource borrowing for the resource request based on changing a visibility status, only upon input of the first code.
The steps recited above under Step 2A Prong One of the analysis under the broadest reasonable interpretation covers commercial or legal interactions (including sales activities or behaviors; business relations) but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is other than reciting a computing system, processor, memory, a first user interface, a client device associated with an entity, controlling and displaying selectable user interface element(s), a second user interface, a computing device associated with the identified dealer, user interface elements, a second user interface element, and a database nothing in the claim elements are directed towards anything other than commercial or legal interactions for allowing customers to shop for vehicles and loans for purchasing a vehicle of interest. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial or legal interactions, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” groupings of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two (Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?) - This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the additional elements of a computing system, processor, memory, a first user interface, a client device associated with an entity, controlling and displaying selectable user interface element(s), a second user interface, a computing device associated with the identified dealer, user interface elements, a second user interface element, and a database. The aforementioned additional elements are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and limit the judicial exception to the particular environment of networked computers. With respect to detecting the trigger action, a trigger action is defined in [0107] of the specification as “Examples of trigger actions which may be detected by the server include, but are not limited to: receiving via the client device a pre-qualification request for qualifying to borrow a first quantity of resources from a resource lender entity…”, this is merely receiving and analyzing information, and aside from using the client device to send the request, the trigger action is akin to providing the information needed for the sales activity for acquiring a loan to purchase a product. The claim limitations reciting controlling, displaying, providing and selectively enabling elements on the first and second user interfaces and interface elements are claimed at a high level of generality, amounting to no more than sending and receiving data between computers over a network and tailoring information to the user for performing the abstract idea in the computer environment. Courts have recognized such operations to be insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(I), 2106.05(d)(ii) and MPEP 2106.05(g) as well as cases cited therein, including buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network), and are merely invoking the computers as tools for performing the abstract process similar to requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370-71, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1642 (Fed. Cir. 2015);. Further, mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components and limiting the judicial exception to a particular environment are not indicative of a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f) and MPEP 2106.05(h)). The specification does not provide any indication that the above forementioned additional elements are other than 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 claims are directed towards an abstract idea.
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?) - The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, using the additional elements of a computing system, processor, memory, a first user interface, a client device associated with an entity, controlling and displaying selectable user interface element(s), a second user interface, a computing device associated with the identified dealer, user interface elements, a second user interface element, and a database to perform the steps recited in Step 2A Prong One of the analysis amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and limits the judicial exception to the particular computer environment. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components and limiting the judicial exception to a particular environment does not provide an inventive concept. The additional elements have been considered separately, and as an ordered combination, and do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the judicial exception. As explained above, controlling the display of and enabling the selectable elements on the first and second user interfaces amount to sending and receiving data between computers over a network, which courts have recognized to be insignificant extra-solution activity and that is well-understood, routine and conventional (see MPEP § 2106.05(g), § 2106.05(d)(II)(i), and invoking the computers as tools for performing the abstract idea and cases cited therein. For example, MPEP 2106.05(d)(ii) provides that receiving and transmitting data over a network (see buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network), and Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log); are well-understood routine and conventional operations, similar to the instant application’s claim limitations which recite and sending and receiving data over a network to allow customers to shop for vehicles and loans for purchasing a vehicle of interest with a dealership. Further, the Examiner is interpreting the providing via the interface and controlling the display of elements, to be akin to a displaying steps, and as discussed above, the displaying step fails to transform the claims into patent eligible material, as this is part of the field of use and technical environment in which the abstract idea is being implement and does not result in an improvement to additional elements (see MPEP 2106.05(h) Electric Power Group court decision). The claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims have been given the full analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination as a whole. Claims 3, 5-6, and 9-10 (and their counterparts in the method claims) further describe commercial and legal interactions but for the recitation of generic components. Claims 4 and 14 further describe the technical environment with use of digital channels to identify the origin of the dealer lead. The dependent claims when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY S CUNNINGHAM II whose telephone number is (313)446-6564. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am-4pm.
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, Bennett Sigmond can be reached at 303-297-4411. 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.
GREGORY S. CUNNINGHAM II
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3694
/GREGORY S CUNNINGHAM II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694
Prosecution Insights