DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
• This action is in reply to the amendments filed on April 16, 2026.
• Claims 1, 6-8, 11, 16-19 have been amended and are hereby entered.
• Claims 4, 9-10, 14, and 20 have been canceled.
• Claims 1-3, 5-8, 11-13, and 15-19 are currently pending and have been examined.
• This action is made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed April 16, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Examiner is withdrawing the claim objections due to Applicant’s amendments.
The Examiner is withdrawing the 35 USC § 112 rejections due to Applicant’s amendments.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 35 USC § 101 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument on pages 11-12, that the claims recite a technical payment network solution and where Applicant relies on portions of the Specification purported to describe an improvement to the problem, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The pending claims do not describe a technical solution to a technical problem. The pending claims are directed to an improvement to the process of determining credit scores for consumers and issuing a virtual payment card for a group of consumers to complete a transaction (see at least [0003]-[0005] of the Specification). The claims of the instant application describe an improvement to a business process i.e., an improvement to the process of determining credit scores for consumers and issuing a virtual payment card for a group of consumers to complete a transaction, not improvement in the functioning of the computer itself or an improvement to any other technology or technological field.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on pages 12-14, that the Office Action overgeneralized, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that each claim was given the full and proper analysis under the test set forth by the Supreme Court and the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis (see MPEP 2106).
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on page 14-15, that the claims integrate a practical application, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis, Step 2A, prong two, integration into a practical application requires an additional element(s) or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application are those that generally link the use of the judicial exception into a particular technological environment or field of use-see MPEP 2106.05(h). Here the claims recite a BNPL lender computer comprising: a processor; and a memory device storing computer-executable instructions thereon, the computer-executable instructions causing said processor to: present a user interface (UI) on a point-of-sale terminal; a credit service computer; a payment network; a lender database associated with the BNPL lender computer; a network database associated with the payment network; a virtual payment card server associated with the payment network and in communication with the BNPL lender computer and the network database such that they amount to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g., a computer network) (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Furthermore, and in response to Applicant’s arguments on pages 14-15, where Applicant argues that the claims improve technology, in determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application, a determination is made of whether the claimed invention pertains to an improvement in the functioning of the computer itself or any other technology or technical field (i.e., a technological solution to a technological problem). Here, the claims recite generic computer components, i.e., a generic processor, a memory storing a computer program executable by the processor to perform the claimed method steps and system functions. The processor, memory and system are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions customarily used in computer applications.
Furthermore, the Specification describes a problem and improvement to a business or commercial process at least at [0001]-[0005], describing an improvement to offering loans to group of consumers based on a group credit score, and stating:
“BNPL services are typically offered by fintech companies or financial institutions and are integrated into various retail websites, mobile apps, and point-of-sale systems. These services have disrupted traditional credit card usage and provided consumers with greater flexibility and transparency in managing their finances. However, BNPL services are offered to a single consumer during a purchase transaction. In instances where an individual consumer may not be eligible for a BNPL loan amount large enough to cover certain large or “big ticket” purchases, the individual consumer may wish to include a second consumer on the BNPL services request. There is no way, however, for a BNPL lender to offer a split installment BNPL loan and/or check the collective credit eligibility of a group of consumers.”
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on page 15-16, that the claims recite an inventive concept in the ordered combination, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In the instant application, the additional elements of the claim include a BNPL lender computer comprising: a processor; and a memory device storing computer-executable instructions thereon, the computer-executable instructions causing said processor to: present a user interface (UI) on a point-of-sale terminal; a credit service computer; a payment network; a lender database associated with the BNPL lender computer; a network database associated with the payment network; a virtual payment card server associated with the payment network and in communication with the BNPL lender computer and the network database. The additional limitations, when considered both individually and in combination, do not affect an improvement to another technology or technological field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself; and the claims do not move beyond a general link of use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claims merely amount to merely generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g., a computer network), and is considered to amount to nothing more than requiring a generic computer network to carry out the abstract idea itself. The specifics about the abstract idea do not overcome the rejection.
The claims are not patent eligible.
For the reasons above, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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, 5-8, 11-13, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claims 1 and 11 are directed to a system (claim 1) and a method (claim 11). Therefore, on its face, each independent claim 1 and 11 are directed to a statutory category of invention under Step 1 of the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis (see MPEP 2106.03).
Under Step 2A, Prong One of the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis (see MPEP 2106.04), claims 1 and 11 recite, in part, a system and a method of organizing human activity. Claim 1 recites a system allowing two or more consumers to cooperatively make a buy now, pay later (BNPL) transaction, the system comprising: receive a transaction amount for the BNPL transaction and respective personal information and financial account details associated with two or more consumers; transmit, to a credit service, the personal information of the two or more consumers; receive, from the credit service, a respective credit score for each of the two or more consumers; combine the respective credit scores, by applying weighting, to generate a collective credit score; based on the transaction amount and the collective credit score, determine to issue a BNPL loan for the transaction amount; generate a BNPL loan account associated with two or more funding accounts respectively associated with the two or more consumers and with installment repayment arrangements for the BNPL loan; transmit a request for a tokenized single use virtual payment card backed by the two or more funding accounts and associated with the BNPL loan; receive a token representing the single use virtual payment card; store the token in association with the BNPL loan account; transmit the token; receive a payment authorization request message, the payment authorization request message including the token and the transaction amount; and in response, process the payment authorization request by identifying, using the token, the BNPL loan account and an associated funding accounts for the transaction, and authorize the transaction for the transaction amount; receive the request for the tokenized, single use virtual payment card; generate and store the single use virtual payment card by generating a primary account number (PAN) for the single use virtual payment card, the single use virtual payment card being backed by the two or more funding accounts; write the PAN and BNPL loan details associated with the single use virtual payment card to a single use virtual payment card record; write details of the two or more funding accounts and installment repayment arrangements associated therewith to the single use virtual payment card record; and transmit the token.
Claim 11 recites similar limitations as claim 1 above, but does not recite receive the request for the tokenized, single use virtual payment card; generate and store the single use virtual payment card by generating a primary account number (PAN) for the single use virtual payment card, the single use virtual payment card being backed by the two or more funding accounts; write the PAN and BNPL loan details associated with the single use virtual payment card to a single use virtual payment card record; write details of the two or more funding accounts and installment repayment arrangements associated therewith to the single use virtual payment card record; and transmit the token
The limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial and legal interactions (certain methods of organizing human activity), but for the recitation of generic computer components. The claims as a whole recite a method of organizing human activity. The claimed inventions allows for determining credit scores for consumers and issuing a virtual payment card for a group of consumers to complete a transaction, which is a commercial and legal interaction, specifically a commercial interaction of sales activities or behaviors. The mere nominal recitation of a processor and a memory device storing computer-executable instructions do not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A, Prong Two of the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis (see MPEP 2106.04), the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements of a BNPL lender computer comprising: a processor; and a memory device storing computer-executable instructions thereon, the computer-executable instructions causing said processor to: present a user interface (UI) on a point-of-sale terminal; a credit service computer; a payment network; a lender database associated with the BNPL lender computer; a network database associated with the payment network; a virtual payment card server associated with the payment network and in communication with the BNPL lender computer and the network database are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer performing generic computer functions receiving a transaction amount, contacting a credit service to obtain a credit score for customers, creating a virtual payment card to be used in a transaction) such that it amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g., a computer network).-see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, the combination of the 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 to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B of the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis (see MPEP 2106.05), the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims have been given the full two part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. Dependent 2-3, 5-8, 12-13, and 15-18 simply help to define the abstract idea. Dependent claims 19 simply further describes the technological environment.
The additional limitations of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Viewing the claim limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the claim limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1-3, 5-8, 11-13, and 15-19 are ineligible.
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 RAVEN E YONO whose telephone number is (313)446-6606. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5PM EST.
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 M 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.
/RAVEN E YONO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694
Prosecution Insights