DETAILED ACTION
Status of Application
This action is a Non-Final Rejection. This action is in response to the request for continued examination filed on January 28, 2026.
Claims 1, 2, 11, 13, and 20 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending and rejected.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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 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.
Response to Arguments
Regarding step 2A, prong one of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant argues that the claims do not recite “any fundamental economic principles or practices” or “the performance of marketing or any sales activities or behaviors.” Remarks at 10-11. However, the rejection provides the claim language and shows which limitations (i.e., those not in bold) recite an abstract idea. These abstract idea limitations recite features for providing account information to an online shopper to help the shopper make a purchasing decision.
Regarding step 2A, prong two of the rejection, Applicant states that “[t]he specification of the present application identifies a technological problem resulting from displays related to online shopping. Specifically, ‘[w]ithout a way to effectively visualize the impact a purchase may have on an individual’s finances, the individual may conduct a purchase that may have significant financial repercussions for years.” Remarks at 12-13. Applicant points to paragraphs 0020 and 0026 of the pgpub to assert a technological solution. Id. at 13-14. However, Applicant is using existing technology to solve a business problem by providing a business solution. For example, although a user may customize a window to show certain data, the technology relating to the window has not been improved. Additionally, combining and/or connecting software systems, applications, and modules does not provide an improvement to technology to the extent that the integration system includes programmed general purpose computing devices and not a special purpose device.
Regarding step 2B of the rejection, Applicant argues “that the above-described specific and particular manner to integrate user verification with displaying in-context information, is not well-understood, routine, or conventional activity, but is rather significantly more than an abstract idea.” Remarks at 15. However, the rejection does not allege that the claim limitations are well understood, routine, or conventional. Instead, a programmed general purpose computing device is being used as a tool to implement the abstract idea. As such, the rejection has been maintained.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to for the following reason: Claim 20 recites “causing to display that the data associated with the cost of the item and terminating the request for the in-context information based on the determined unsuccessful verification.” The inclusion of “that” appears to be a typographical error. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. § 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Does the Claim Fall within a Statutory Category? (see MPEP 2106.03)
Yes, with respect to claims 1-19, which recite a method and, therefore, are directed to the statutory class of process.
Yes, with respect to claim 20, which recites a system and, therefore, is directed to the statutory class of machine or manufacture.
Step 2A, Prong One: Is a Judicial Exception Recited? (see MPEP 2106.04(a))
The following claims identify the limitations that recite the abstract idea in regular text and that recite additional elements in bold:
1. A method for providing in-context information, the method comprising:
receiving a request for the in-context information, the request automatically generated by an integration system in response to a trigger event at a user interface, wherein:
the trigger event is initiation of a web browser; and
the in-context information includes user-specific data;
establishing a connection by the integration system, between an authentication system, a database, and one or more user accounts;
determining a user verification level, wherein the user verification level is determined using one or more authentication methods by the authentication system;
upon determining the user verification level, requesting the user-specific data, from the database, associated with the one or more user accounts, the requested user-specific data indicative of the determined user verification level; and
causing to display the in-context information via the user interface, the displayed in-context information determined based on the determined user verification level.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the integration system combines the authentication system, the database, and one or more user accounts into a unified system via an application programming interface (API), a web browser plug-in, or an embedded browser.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the user-specific data includes any of an account balance, an estimated payoff time, an interest rate associated with an account, an estimated amount of interest to be paid based on a purchase, or an estimated amount of interest to be paid based on the account balance.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein the user verification level is determined based on the one or more authentication methods used.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the user-specific data associated with the one or more user accounts includes one or more of prior user purchases from a retailer, prior user returns from the retailer, or other user transactions with the retailer.
6. The method of claim 5, further comprising:
providing one or more recommendations for the user based on the user-specific data associated with the one or more user accounts; and
causing to display the one or more recommendations via the user interface.
7. The method of claim 6, wherein the one or more recommendations include using a particular bank card or lifestyle suggestions.
8. The method of claim 1, wherein the causing to display the in-context information via the user interface includes modifying the user interface using JavaScript to generate an embedded context window to display the in-context information on a webpage.
9. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
embedding a user-specific information window using JavaScript, the user-specific information window populated with at least the user-specific data; and
causing to display the user-specific data via the user-specific information window.
10. The method of claim 9, further comprising:
modifying one or more aspects of the user-specific information window via the user interface.
11. A method for providing in-context information, the method comprising:
receiving customization settings by a user via an input device, the customization settings including displaying data in a certain manner based on one or more user verification levels;
receiving a request for the in-context information, the request generated by an integration system in response to a trigger event at a user interface;
establishing a connection by the integration system, between an authentication system, a database, and one or more user accounts, the integration system configured to establish the connection via a browser plug-in;
determining a user verification level, wherein the user verification level is determined using one or more authentication methods by the authentication system;
upon determining the user verification level, requesting user-specific data, from the database, associated with the one or more user accounts, the requested user-specific data indicative of the determined user verification level and customization settings; and
causing to display the in-context information via the user interface in the certain manner based on the customization settings, the displayed in-context information determined based on the determined user verification level.
12. The method of claim 11, wherein the in-context information includes any of an account balance, an estimated payoff time, an interest rate associated with an account, an estimated amount of interest to be paid based on a purchase, or an estimated amount of interest to be paid based on the account balance.
13. The method of claim 11, wherein the integration system combines the authentication system, the database, and one or more user accounts into a unified system via an API, a web browser plug-in, or an embedded browser.
14. The method of claim 11, wherein the trigger event is any of a selection made by a user via an input device, a focus area selected by the user via the input device, or initiation of a web browser.
15. The method of claim 11, wherein the user verification level is determined based on the one or more authentication methods used.
16. The method of claim 11, wherein the user-specific data associated with the one or more user accounts includes one or more of prior user purchases from a retailer, prior user returns from the retailer, or other user transactions with the retailer.
17. The method of claim 16, further comprising:
providing one or more recommendations for a user based on the user-specific data associated with the one or more user accounts; and
causing to display the one or more recommendations via the user interface.
18. The method of claim 17, wherein the one or more recommendations include using a particular bank card or lifestyle suggestions.
19. The method of claim 11, further comprising:
generating a user-specific information window, the user-specific information window comprising at least user-specific data; and
causing to display the user-specific data via the user-specific information window.
20. A system, the system comprising:
at least one memory storing instructions; and
at least one processor executing the instructions to perform operations for providing in-context information, the operations including:
receiving customization settings by a user via an input device, the customization settings including displaying one or more types of data based on one or more user verification levels;
receiving a request for the in-context information, the request generated by an integration system in response to a trigger event at a user interface, wherein:
the trigger event is any of a selection made by a user via the input device, a focus area selected by a user via an input device, or initiation of a web browser; and
the in-context information includes user-specific data;
establishing a connection by the integration system, between an authentication system, a database, and one or more user accounts the integration system configured to establish the connection via an API;
determining a user verification level or determining an unsuccessful verification, wherein the user verification level is determined using one or more authentication methods by the authentication system;
upon determining the user verification level, requesting data, from the database, associated with the one or more user accounts, the requested data indicative of the determined user verification level and the customization settings; or
upon determining the unsuccessful verification, requesting data associated with a cost of an item; and
causing to display the data associated with the one or more user accounts based on the determined user verification level and the customization settings, or
causing to display that the data associated with the cost of the item and terminating the request for the in-context information based on the determined unsuccessful verification.
Yes. But for the recited additional elements as shown above in bold, the remaining limitations of the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activity. The claims are directed to providing information to a user that will help the user understand the effect of a purchase. This type of method of organizing human activity is a fundamental economic practice because it includes mitigating risk by determining a verification level based on the method of authentication and a commercial interaction such as sales activities or behaviors and business relations. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Is the Abstract Idea Integrated into a Practical Application? (see MPEP 2106.04(d))
No. The claims as a whole merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The computing components (i.e., additional elements that are in bold above) are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to implement the steps. For example, only a programmed general purpose computing device is needed to implement the claimed process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the abstract idea is merely being linked to a particular technological environment, i.e., an online shopping environment. Employing known technology within an online shopping environment to execute the abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the abstract idea to this environment, does not integrate the exception into a practical application or add significantly more. Additionally, there is no improvement to the functioning of a computer or technology. Therefore, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the Claim Provide an Inventive Concept? (see MPEP 2106.05)
No. As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional elements in the claims, both individually and in combination, amount to no more than tools to perform the abstract idea. Merely performing the abstract idea using a computer cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims do not provide an inventive concept.
As such, the claims are not patent eligible.
Relevant Prior Art
The following reference is relevant to Applicant’s invention:
Olliphant et al., U.S. Patent Number 11,580,597 B2. This reference teaches a method for providing user-specific dynamic content for facilitating online transactions.
Hodges, U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2012/0095905 A1. See Figure 1, item 108 and associated text.
Email Communications
Per MPEP 502.03, Applicant may authorize email communications by filing Form PTO/SB/439, available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf, via the USPTO patent electronic filing system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH H ROSEN whose telephone number is (571) 270-1850 and email address is elizabeth.rosen@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10 AM ET - 7 PM ET.
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, Michael Anderson, can be reached at 571-270-0508. 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.
/ELIZABETH H ROSEN/Primary Examiner, 3693
Prosecution Insights