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 following is in reply to the response filed and entered with the RCE filed 2/23/2026. Claims 1-3, 5-13 and 15-20 are pending. Claims 4 and 14 have been cancelled.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/23/2026 has been entered.
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, 5-13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 – are the claims directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter. The method of claim 1 and apparatus of claim 11 are within the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, prong one – do the claims recite a judicial exception, which is an abstract idea enumerated in MPEP 2106, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon. Using the text of claim 1 as an example, the claim recites
A method for providing …. for user controlled loan repayment, the method comprising:
receiving, from a remote …customer, a request to initiate a modification activity with respect to a loan; determining a list of modification activities applicable to the loan and the customer, the list of modification activities including a first modification activity and a second modification activity, wherein at least one of the first modification activity or the second modification activity includes a request to change repayment parameters associated with the loan; providing instructions … display the list of modification activities; receiving a selected modification activity …; and recording updated loan terms based on the selected modification activity,
wherein responsive to receipt of the selected modification activity, …determines a plurality of modification options to display to the customer based on patterns of activity in a user account associated with the customer, …training repayment data and target loan repayment data associated with a repayment model to infer at least a cadence of repayments and amount of repayments for inclusion in the modification options. The claim recites an abstract idea. Specifically, claims 1 and 11 fall with the abstract idea grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity and the subgrouping of fundamental economic practices (loans, commercial or legal interaction, business relations of user controlled loan repayment ). Accordingly, claims 1 and 11 are directed to the judicial exception of an abstract idea.
Although the claims have been placed in the commercial or legal interactions subgrouping of the abstract idea grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity discussed in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B), the claims also fall in the fundamental economic practices or principles subgrouping discussed in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A). MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A) notes "The category of abstract ideas embraces ‘fundamental economic practice[s] long prevalent in our system of commerce,’ … including ‘longstanding commercial practice[s]’" It is respectfully submitted that refinancing a loan is long prevalent in our system of commerce and a long standing commercial practice.
Step 2A, prong two – do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim recites the additional elements of a remote device, processing circuitry and a machine learning module. The computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B – do the claims recited additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, includes the additional elements of a remote device, processing circuitry and a machine learning module to perform s loan repayment method. The additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, claims 1 and 11 do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 2, 3, 5-10, 12, 13 and 15-20 do not cure the deficiencies in their respective base claims. Specifically, claims 2, 3, 5-10, 12, 13 and 15-20 merely refine the abstract idea (2A1) by invoking a computer as a tool to perform an existing process (2A2, 2B).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 5-13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swimmer (US 2022/0270060) in view of Kaufman (US 2023/0103904) and further in view of Tucker (US 2021/0150624).
Specifically as to Claim 1 and 11, Swimmer discloses a method (and related apparatus) for providing an interface for user controlled loan repayment, the method comprising: (Swimmer, Fig. 11A, [0090], message 1100)
receiving, from a remote device of a customer, a request to initiate a modification activity with respect to a loan; (Swimmer, Fig. 11A, [0090], conversion link 1110; Fig. 1, [0033], client 20, smart phone) ; determining a list of modification activities applicable to the loan and the customer, the list of modification activities including a first modification activity and a second modification activity, wherein at least one of the first modification activity or the second modification activity includes a request to change repayment parameters associated with the loan; (Swimmer, Fig. 13A, [0093], first conversion option 1320 and second conversion option 1330 which is a custom loan)
providing instructions to the remote device to display the list of modification activities; (Swimmer, Fig. 13A, [0093], conversion page 1300 shows first conversion option 1320 and second conversion option 1330);receiving a selected modification activity from the remote device; and (Swimmer, [0094], different user selected modality through conversion)
recording updated loan terms based on the selected modification activity, (Swimmer, [0081], updated instructions regarding selected modality; [0086], terms; Fig. 2, [0054], memory 104. Swimmer does not specifically disclose recording updated loan terms.
Kaufman, [0099], discusses a user selection of financing offers may then cause the transaction to be financed and the loan to be underwritten and the corresponding repayment schedule associated with the confirmation of the loan applies.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the conversion of Swimmer to include application of loan as in Kaufman in order to provide financing as discussed in Kaufman, [0003], and Swimmer, [0095]. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to include the features as taught in Kaufman in Swimmer since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, both are in the field of consumer financing and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the combination to be predictable.) wherein responsive to receipt of the selected modification activity, a machine learning module determines a plurality of modification options to display to the customer based on patterns of activity in a user account associated with the customer, (Swimmer, Fig. 11A, [0090], conversion link 1110).
Swimmer does not specifically disclose a machine learning module determines a plurality of modification options to display to the customer based on patterns of activity in a user account associated with the customer, being trained on training repayment data and target loan repayment data associated with a repayment model to infer at least a cadence and amount for inclusion in the modification options.
Kaufman, [0057], teaches using machine learning to suggest financing options for a user. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the conversion of Kaufman to include options suggested by machine learning as in Kaufman in order to conform to user preferences as discussed in Swimmer, [0060], and Kaufman, [0057].)
Tucker, [0053], teaches training a machine learning engine based on past transaction and user data to flip a payment into an installment loan based including time and amount load factors.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the conversion of Swimmer to include the machine learning as in Kaufman and to further include the machine learning training of Tucker in order to conform to user preferences as discussed in Swimmer, [0060], Kaufman, [0057], and Tucker, [0053]. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to include the features as taught in Tucker in Swimmer as modified by Kaufman since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, all three are in the field of consumer financing and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the combination to be predictable.).
Specifically as to Claim 2 and 12, wherein determining the list of modification activities comprises referencing the user account associated with the customer to determine a listing of loans associated with the user account and eligible for modification. (Swimmer, Fig. 14, [0095], [0096], user account 1400, convert 1435, promotions may be pushed to customer 1440).
Specifically as to Claim 3 and 13, wherein determining the list of modification activities further comprises providing the listing of loans to the remote device, and receiving a selection of a selected loan from the listing of loans, and wherein the list of modification activities includes activities specific to the selected loan. (Swimmer, Fig. 13B, [0093], 0% financing is available for conversion of the credit transaction 1310).
Specifically as to Claim 5 and 15, wherein one of the modification options includes an inference regarding a preferred payment schedule based on ACH transfer data associated with the user account. (Swimmer, Fig. 11A, [0090], conversion link 1110; [0068], facilitation agent 44, number and periodicity for payments, customer may make election for time period; [0069], terms may be dictated based on payment history of customer).
Specifically as to Claim 6 and 16, wherein one of the modification options includes a request to pause payment on the loan until a dispute with a merchant is resolved or while a refund is processed. (Swimmer, Fig. 11A, [0090], conversion link 1110; [0069], customer makes election to defer settlement of transaction. Swimmer does not specifically disclose a refund is processed.
Kaufman, [0068], discusses refund module 90 if the customer wishes to return an item.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the deferment of Swimmer to include the refund module of Kaufman in order to handle item returns as discussed in Kaufman, [0068], and review transactions as in Swimmer, [0065].)
Specifically as to Claim 7 and 17, wherein one of the modification options includes a request to combine loans to determine a single combined payment and schedule. (Swimmer, Fig. 11A, [0090], conversion link 1110; [0070], customer may be enabled to group transactions and treat the entire group as a buy now, pay later transaction. Swimmer does not specifically disclose a single combined payment and schedule.
Kaufman, [0058], [0059], discusses the customer may be enabled to toggle between separate loan transactions or aggregating loans.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the conversion of Swimmer to include the individual or aggregated loans of Kaufman in order to provide more flexible financing as discussed in Kaufman, [0003], and Swimmer, [0095].)
Specifically as to Claim 8 rand 18,, wherein one of the modification options includes a request to unbundle at least one item from a list of items associated with the loan, and wherein the at least one item has not yet been received by the customer, is subject to a dispute with a merchant, or is subject to a refund request. (Swimmer, Fig. 11A, [0090], conversion link 1110. Swimmer does not specifically disclose a request to unbundle at least one item from a list of items associated with the loan, and wherein the at least one item has not yet been received by the customer, is subject to a dispute with a merchant, or is subject to a refund request. Kaufman, [0068], discusses refund module 90 if the customer wishes to return an item. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the conversion of Swimmer to include the refund module of Kaufman in order to handle item returns as discussed in Kaufman, [0068].)
Specifically as to Claim 9 and 19, wherein recording the updated loan terms comprises providing a full refund for the at least one item to the user account associated with the customer, and calculating a remaining loan amount, and repayment schedule based on a subtracting the full refund from an original loan amount as adjusted by payments received to date. (Swimmer, [0081], updated instructions regarding selected modality; [0086], terms; Fig. 2, [0054], memory 104. Swimmer does not specifically disclose a recording the updated loan terms comprises providing a full refund for the at least one item to a user account associated with the customer, and calculating a remaining loan amount, and repayment schedule based on a subtracting the full refund from an original loan amount as adjusted by payments received to date.
Kaufman, [0068], discusses refund module 90 calculates financing based on the product remaining.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the conversion of Swimmer to include the refund module of Kaufman in order to handle item returns as discussed in Kaufman, [0068].)
Specifically as to Claim 10 and 20, wherein recording the updated loan terms comprises providing a partial refund for the at least one item to the user account associated with the customer, and calculating a remaining loan amount, and repayment schedule based on a subtracting the partial refund from an original loan amount as adjusted by payments received to date. (Swimmer, [0081], updated instructions regarding selected modality; [0086], terms; Fig. 2, [0054], memory 104. Swimmer does not specifically disclose recording the updated loan terms comprises providing a partial refund for the at least one item to a user account associated with the customer, and calculating a remaining loan amount, and repayment schedule based on a subtracting the partial refund from an original loan amount as adjusted by payments received to date.
Kaufman, [0068], discusses refund module 90 calculates financing based on the product remaining.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the conversion of Swimmer to include the refund module of Kaufman in order to handle item returns as discussed in Kaufman, [0068].)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 2/23/2026 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 1-3, 5-13, 15-20, based upon lack of subject matter eligibility under 35 USC 101 as set forth in the last Office action because: it is directed to legal reasoning and not to the facts and provides reasons supporting a technological solution to a business problem (see 1.132 #9 on page 5, “the inventors were focused on attempting to determine an improved way to interact with customer in relation to providing options for changing repayment options after a financing offer has been accepted” (an improvement to an abstract idea).
Mr. Whitmire has not established the problem facing providing options for changing repayment options after a financing offer has been accepted by customers as a technical problem. It is a logistical or business problem in customer relations. The stated solution provided in the declaration is to use computers through machine learning to provide a improved options for refinancing which does not solve a technical problem. Please be aware that affidavits can only provide factual evidence, not legal conclusions.
Regarding applicant’s argument Dr. Whitmire determined the claims do more than “apply it,” this is directed to legal analysis and not factual evidence. The same reasoning applies with respect to applicant’s arguments regarding significantly more. Applicant argues Dr. Whitmire is “One of ordinary skill in the art” Examiner respectfully disagrees, based on the extensive resume provided, Dr. Whitmire appears to be above ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant’s arguments and amendments have been fully considered, and the amended claims are addressed in detail above. Regarding the machine learning module previously added to the independent claims from claims 4 and 14, respectively, Kaufman, [0057], discusses using machine learning to suggest financing options for a user. Regarding the newly added feature of “the machine learning module being trained on training repayment data and target loan repayment data associated with a repayment model to infer at least a cadence and amount for inclusion in the modification options”, Tucker was previously added to show this feature, as discussed above. Tucker, teaches training a machine learning engine based on past transaction and user data to flip a payment into an installment loan based including time and amount load factors.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure includes: US 20240378604; US 12039596; US 20230097322; US 20230070215; US 20230063206; US 11107157; and US 10607286.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kelly Campen whose telephone number is (571)272-6740. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6am-3pm.
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, Abhishek Vyas can be reached at 571-270-1836. 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.
Kelly S. Campen
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3691
/KELLY S. CAMPEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691