DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the rejection made under § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s amendments filed on 01/30/2026 do not overcome the rejection made under § 101.
Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea and, even viewed as such, are integrated into a practical application that provide a technical solution to a technical problem because they “utilize a defined graphical interface to facilitate an easy way for a merchant who sells products or services online to receive a loan or cash advance either partially or wholly based on data related to their online sales”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. This is a problem at the abstract layer of organizing human activities, not one borne out of technology. The problems noted in Specification do not highlight any failures of modern computers. These are business implementation problems and do not set forth any deficiencies that are particular to computer capabilities or any other technology. "In sum, 'software can make non-abstract improvements to computer technology just as hardware improvements can.' Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335. But to be directed to a patent-eligible improvement to computer functionality, the claims must be directed to an improvement to the functionality of the computer or network platform itself." Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (emphasis added).
Specifically, requesting a cash advance, analyzing the cash advance and sending a cash advance response is an abstract endeavor. It does not become technological merely by using generic computer elements such as a processor to perform the abstract idea. The claimed invention does not improve any particular machine or allow one to perform a new function that it was not previously able to do. Instead, it merely chooses one that is properly scaled. This is analogous to, e.g., choosing an appropriately-sized memory when an application requires more storage or a higher-powered processor that is capable of performing faster calculations when those are necessary. It is still using a generic computing element as a tool to perform an abstract function, without setting forth any technological improvements. "[P]atents that do no more than claim the application of generic machine learning to new data environments, without disclosing improvements to the machine learning models to be applied, are patent ineligible under § 101. Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox. Corp., Fed Cir. No. 2023-2437 (Apr. 18, 2025) (slip op. at 18).
These elements are all abstract and when viewed in combination only amount to applying the abstract idea on generic computers. "Examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application…" MPEP 2106.04(d) II. (emphasis added).
The rest of the arguments are addressed in the Rejection below.
Accordingly, the rejection is 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter (a judicial exception without significantly more). Claims are eligible for patent protection under § 101 if they are in one of the four statutory categories and not directed to a judicial exception to patentability. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). Claims 1-20, each considered as a whole and as an ordered combination, are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites a method. Claim 8 recites a system. Claim 15 recites a non-transitory computer-readable media.
Step 2A, prong 1: Claim 1 recites the abstract idea of providing funds to the marketplace participants. This idea is described by the following steps:
A method comprising:
receiving a cash advance request for a cash advance;
retrieving information associated with a requester of the cash advance;
identifying a financial account based at least in part on the information associated with the requester of the cash advance information in the cash advance request;
analyzing the cash advance request based at least in part on the financial account and the information associated with the requester of the cash advance;
determining a maximum amount to offer as the cash advance based at least on analyzing the financial account;
assigning a score to the cash advance request based at least on analyzing the cash advance request; and
sending, in response to determining that the score exceeds a threshold score, a cash advance response.
Claims 8 and 15 recite equivalent limitations.
This idea falls into the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas as it is directed towards commercial interactions including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors (i.e., assigning a score to the cash advance request based at least on analyzing the cash advance request).
Step 2A, prong 2: Claims 8 and 15 recite additional elements that fail to integrate the abstract idea into practical application.
Claims 8 and 15 recite a processor; a memory and a non-transitory, computer-readable media storing instructions that are executable by the one or more processors to cause the computing system to perform operations. However, these elements are generic computing components (see at least paragraph 0105) that are simply used to perform operations that would otherwise be abstract (see MPEP2106.05(f)).
Claims 1, 8 and 15 additionally recite generating in response to a user activated link, data defining a graphical user interface for a cash advance application. However, the above identified features are recited at a high level of generality and are merely used as tools to perform the process (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claims 21, 30, and 40 also recites that the request is received through “input fields displayed within the graphical user interface displayed on a display of the client device”. However, these limitations are considered insignificant extra solution activity as they amount to necessary data gathering and outputting, wherein all uses of the recited abstract idea require such data gathering (i.e. receiving a request) and data output (i.e. displaying a response on a user device) (see2106.05(g)). Note how the abstract idea above includes the offer and menu communicating aspects of the claimed modifying steps. They are not "additional elements" to be analyzed under this part of the framework, and merely serve to add a general link to a technological environment in which the abstract idea/commercial interaction is carried out, and instructions to apply (execute) it. The additional elements do not amount to significantly more for the same reasons they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (i.e., that they merely provide a general link to a particular technological environment and instructions to "apply it").
Step 2B: Claims 1, 8 and 15 fail to recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept.
For the reasons identified with respect to Step 2A, prong 2, claims 1, 8 and 15 fail to recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept. For example, use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
With respect to the limitations determined to be insignificant extra solution activity, these elements are similar to at least the following concepts determined by the courts to be insignificant extra solution activity that does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea:
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information). For example, at least paragraph 046 describes a network system that facilitates a request for services received from a user.
Dependent Claims Step 2A:
The limitations of the dependent claims merely set forth further refinements of the abstract idea identified at step 2A—Prong One, without changing the analysis already presented. Additionally, for the same reasons as above, the limitations fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea as the independent claims identified at step 2A—Prong Two.
Dependent Claims Step 2B:
The dependent claims merely use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea. These do not amount to significantly more for the same reasons they fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Moreover, the Specification also indicates this is the routine use of known components for the same reasons presented with respect to the elements in the independent claims above.
Thus, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed invention as a whole, the claims are not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
The prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious the combination of:
generating, in response to a user activated link, data defining a graphical user interface for a cash advance application; receiving, from a client device, a cash advance request for a cash advance, wherein one or more inputs included in the cash advance request were received through input fields displayed within the graphical user interface displayed on a display of the client device; retrieving information associated with a requester of the cash advance based at least in part on one or more inputs included in the cash advance request; identifying a financial account based at least in part on the information associated with the requester of the cash advance information in the cash advance request; analyzing the cash advance request based at least in part on transactions of the financial account and the information associated with the requester of the cash advance; determining a maximum amount to offer as the cash advance based at least on analyzing transactions of the financial account; assigning a score to the cash advance request based at least on analyzing the cash advance request transactions of the financial account; and sending, to the client device and in response to determining that the score exceeds a threshold score, a cash advance response that comprises the maximum amount to offer.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MILA AIRAPETIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3202. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am-6:00 pm.
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.
/MILA AIRAPETIAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688