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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 October 29, 2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
• This action is in reply to the RCE filed on October 29, 2025.
• Claims 1 and 11 have been amended and are hereby entered.
• Claims 4, 10, 14, and 20 have been canceled.
• Claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-13, and 15-19 are currently pending and have been examined.
• This action is made Non-FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on October 7, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
New claim objections have been entered due to applicant’s amendments.
New 35 USC § 112 rejections have been entered 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 8-9, that the claims recite particular computer network data structures and are not directed to an abstract idea, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant further argues, on page 9, that the claims recite various features and that the focus of the claims is a specific credential data model and authorization protocol in a network. The argument has been considered and is not persuasive. As an initial matter, the Examiner notes that credential data model and an authorization protocol further describes a business process of using credentials to authorize a transaction. Furthermore, as indicated in the 35 USC § 101 rejection below, claim 1 recites for determining credit scores for consumers and issuing a virtual payment card for a group of consumers to complete a transaction. The Specification at [0003]-[0005] discloses:
“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…. a system allowing two or more consumers to cooperatively make a buy now, pay later (BNPL) transaction is provided.”
The Specification and claims focus on 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, which is a commercial and legal interaction including sales activities or behaviors which falls within the category of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and therefore is an abstract idea.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on pages 9-10, 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 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 network database; and a lender 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 9-10 where Applicant argues the claims recite a particular machine arrangement, 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 pages 10-11, that the claims recite significantly more than the abstract idea, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitations are directed to an abstract idea and when determining if the claims are directed to significantly more, the additional limitations of the claims in addition to the abstract idea are analyzed. In the instant application, the additional elements of the claim include 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 network database; and a lender 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.
Applicant’s reliance upon Bascom, on pages 10-11, is misplaced. The claims here are not like those the Court found patent eligible in Bascom, in which the inventive concept was the unconventional arrangement of the installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the end-users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user, this design permitted the filtering tool to have both the benefits of a filter on a local computer and the benefits of a filter on the [Internet Service Provider] server and was not conventional or generic, instead, the patent claimed and explained how a particular arrangement of elements was “a technical improvement over prior art ways of filtering such content.” (BASCOM, 827 F.3d at 1345.). In the instant application the claims do not have an inventive concept found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of the additional elements.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on page 11 that the Office Action does not cite evidence that features are well-understood, routine, and conventional, the argument has been considered and is not persuasive. In response to this argument, the Examiner respectfully points out that the additional elements amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.-see MPEP 2106.05(f). This consideration is different than the Well Understood, Routine, and Conventional Consideration –See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Applicant further argues, on page 11, that the claims recite a non-conventional arrangement of components. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitations are directed to an abstract idea and when determining if the claims are directed to significantly more, the additional limitations of the claims in addition to the abstract idea are analyzed. For example, the Specification at [0073] recites the following regarding the claimed “processor:” “computer hardware, such as a processor, may be implemented as special purpose or as general purpose…The processor may also comprise programmable logic or circuitry (e.g., as encompassed within a general-purpose processor or other programmable processor)…” The additional elements of the claims are merely generic computer components performing customary and generic steps. The Applicant fails to point out, and the Specification does not support or describe, as to how the steps are unconventional steps or how the components are arranged unconventionally such that they confine the claims to a particular useful application.
The claims are not patent eligible.
For the reasons above, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims recite the limitation “BNLP.” This appears to be a typographical error, as the rest of the claim and the Specification refers to the acronym “BNPL.” Was “BNPL” meant here?
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-13, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitations of “processing the payment authorization request by resolving the token to the BNPL loan account and associated two or more funding accounts per the installment repayment schedule.” The Specification is devoid of support for the feature of resolving the token to the BNPL loan account and associated two or more funding accounts. Therefore, it is new matter.
Claim 11 has similar limitations found in claim 1 above, and therefore is rejected by the same rationale.
The rest of the dependent claims are rejected due to their dependency to a rejected claim.
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, 5-9, 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. Using the limitations in claim 1 to illustrate, the claim 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; transmit a request for a tokenized single use virtual payment card backed by two or more funding accounts respectively associated with the two or more consumers, the single use virtual payment card to be associated with the BNPL loan; receive a primary account number (PAN) and a corresponding token representing the single use virtual payment card, the PAN and token being associated with a mapping between the token, the two or more funding accounts, and an installment repayment schedule; store the token in association with a BNPL loan account, the BNPL loan account being associated with the two or more funding accounts and the installments repayment schedule; 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 resolving the token to the BNPL loan account and associated two or more funding accounts per the installment repayment schedule, and authorize the transaction for the transaction amount. 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 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 network database; and a lender 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 9 and 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, 5-9, 11-13, and 15-19 are ineligible.
Conclusion
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