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
The following is Office Action on the merits in response to the communication received on 3/3/26.
Claim status:
Amended claims: 1, 8, 11, and 18
Canceled claims: 7 and 17
Added New claims: None
Pending claims: 1-6, 8-16, and 18-20
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 1-6, 8-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to statutory subject matter. Specifically, the invention of claims 1-6, 8-16, and 18-20 is directed to 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 of claims 1 and 11 is directed to a statutory category of invention under Step 1 of the 2019 PEG. However each of claims 1 and 11 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, under Step 2A (Prong One and Prong Two) and Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, which is a judicial exception to 35 U.S.C. 101, as detailed below. Using the language of independent claim 1 to illustrate the claim recites the limitations of (i) storing a symmetric BNPL loan offer similarity matrix, a transaction similarity matrix, and historical transaction data, the historical transaction data including a plurality of consumer historical transaction records associated with a plurality of consumers; (ii) storing computer-executable instructions thereon, the computer-executable instructions causing to: populate the symmetric BNPL loan offer similarity matrix by generating a plurality of cosine similarity scores between a plurality of BNPL loan offering vectors for respective BNPL loan offers; (iii) populate the transaction similarity matrix by generating a plurality of similarity scores between normalized transaction feature vectors generated from historical transaction data, (iv) receive, a request for one or more recommended BNPL loan offers, the request associated with a transaction being performed by a consumer; (v) retrieve, the BNPL loan offer similarity matrix and the transaction similarity matrix; (vi) retrieve, from the historical transaction data, one or more consumer historical transaction records associated with the consumer, the one or more consumer historical transaction records including only transaction records for transactions performed by the consumer using a BNPL loan offer; (vii) perform a content-based recommendation calculation using the one or more consumer historical transaction records and the BNPL loan offer similarity matrix; (viii) perform an experience-based recommendation calculation using the transaction data, the BNPL loan offer similarity matrix, and the transaction similarity matrix; (ix) generating a transaction data feature vector for the transaction being performed by the consumer, (x) computing a transaction similarity score between the transaction data feature vector and each consumer historical transaction record represented in the transaction similarity matrix, (xi) selecting, as a most similar transaction, a consumer historical transaction record associated with a highest transaction similarity score, (xii) produce the one or more recommended BNPL loan offers based on results of the content-based recommendation calculation and the experience-based recommendation calculation by weighting the results according to a mixing factor based on prior BNPL loan usage by the consumer; and (xiii) generating a recommendation score for each of the respective BNPL loan offers, (xiv) ranking the respective BNPL loan offers based on the recommendation scores, (xv) selecting the one or more recommended BNPL loan offers based on the ranking, (xvi) transmit the one or more recommended BNPL loan offers to the merchant under the broadest reasonable interpretation covers methods of organizing human activity: commercial interactions, but for the recitation of generic computers and generic computer components. (Independent claim 11 recites similar limitations and the analysis is the same).
That is, other than reciting a database, at least one processor, a memory and a computer nothing in the claim precludes the steps from being directed to methods of organizing human activity: commercial interactions, but for the recitation of generic computers. If a claim limitation under its BRI, covers methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, then the limitations fall within the “methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Therefore, claim 1 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One of the Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance 84 Fed.Reg 50 (“2019 PEG”).
This “methods of organizing human activity” is not integrated into a practical application under Step 2A prong Two of the 2019 PEG. In particular claim 1 recites the following additional elements of, a database, at least one processor, a memory and a computer. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional elements – a database, at least one processor, a memory and a computer.
The database, at least one processor, memory and computer are recited at a high-level or generality (i.e. as a generic computer performing generic computer functions) such that, they amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea with a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(h). Accordingly these 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 2019 PEG independent claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim(s) 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 of using a database, at least one processor, a memory and a computer, storing a symmetric BNPL loan offer similarity matrix, a transaction similarity matrix, and historical transaction data, the historical transaction data including a plurality of consumer historical transaction records associated with a plurality of consumers; storing computer-executable instructions thereon, the computer-executable instructions causing to: populate the symmetric BNPL loan offer similarity matrix by generating a plurality of cosine similarity scores between a plurality of BNPL loan offering vectors for respective BNPL loan offers; populate the transaction similarity matrix by generating a plurality of similarity scores between normalized transaction feature vectors generated from historical transaction data, receive, a request for one or more recommended BNPL loan offers, the request associated with a transaction being performed by a consumer; retrieve, the BNPL loan offer similarity matrix and the transaction similarity matrix; retrieve, from the historical transaction data, one or more consumer historical transaction records associated with the consumer, the one or more consumer historical transaction records including only transaction records for transactions performed by the consumer using a BNPL loan offer; perform a content-based recommendation calculation using the one or more consumer historical transaction records and the BNPL loan offer similarity matrix; perform an experience-based recommendation calculation using the transaction data, the BNPL loan offer similarity matrix, and the transaction similarity matrix; generating a transaction data feature vector for the transaction being performed by the consumer, computing a transaction similarity score between the transaction data feature vector and each consumer historical transaction record represented in the transaction similarity matrix, selecting, as a most similar transaction, a consumer historical transaction record associated with a highest transaction similarity score, produce the one or more recommended BNPL loan offers based on results of the content-based recommendation calculation and the experience-based recommendation calculation by weighting the results according to a mixing factor based on prior BNPL loan usage by the consumer; and generating a recommendation score for each of the respective BNPL loan offers, ranking the respective BNPL loan offers based on the recommendation scores, selecting the one or more recommended BNPL loan offers based on the ranking, transmit the one or more recommended BNPL loan offers to the merchant, amounts to an instruction to apply the abstract idea with a computer. The claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims have been given the full two part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations individually. The Dependent claim(s) when analyzed individually 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 to establish that the claim(s) are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 2-6, 8-10, 12-16 and 18-20 merely further explains the abstract idea.
When viewed individually the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly claims 1-6, 8-16, and 18-20 are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The Applicant’s arguments and amendments overcome the 112 Rejections, therefore, the Rejection(s) are moot.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/3/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
35 USC § 101
The Applicant states that the “claims do not "set forth or describe" a fundamental commercial practice in the abstract” (page 13) and “the claims nonetheless integrate any alleged exception into a practical application” (page 14). The Examiner disagrees with the sentences because the claims are an improvement of the abstract idea only. It is a business solution to a business problem of recommending installment loans to a consumer based on past transaction patterns. The applicant has not shown how the claims improve a computer or other technology, invoke a particular machine, transform matter, or provide more than a general link between the abstraction and the technology, MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) & (e). The recited data structures (i.e., two matrices with cosine similarity semantics and normalized feature vectors) and recited operations (i.e., cosine similarity, vector normalization, and a usage responsive mixing factor) are conventional data architectures and functions and are used in a conventional manner. The claims do not provide an improvement over prior systems and only adds details to the abstract idea, they do not address a problem particular to computer networks and merely applies the abstract idea on general computer components that function in a conventional manner. The amended claims make the abstract idea more specific, and recommending installment loans to a consumer based on past transaction patterns is not an unconventional activity. Applicant’s remarks about why these limitations provide a practical application fail to surface any technical improvement identified in the specification and, therefore this is not an inventive concept and significantly more.
35 USC § 112
The Applicant’s arguments and amendments overcome the 112 Rejections, therefore, the Rejection(s) are moot.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARLA HUDSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1063. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 a.m. - 5:30 p.m. 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, Bennett 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.
/M.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3694
/BENNETT M SIGMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3694