DETAILED ACTION
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Status of the Claims
Claims 35-40 and 60-66 are presented for examination. Applicant filed a response to non-final Office action on 02/11/2026 amending claims 35-40; canceling claims 41-59; and adding new claims 60-66. In light of Applicant’s amendments and cancellation of claims, Examiner has withdrawn the previous: § 112 , ¶ 1, rejection of claims 41-59; § 101 rejection of claims 35-59; and grounds of § 103 rejection of claims 35-40. Examiner has, however, established new objections to claims 35 and 66, and new § 101 rejection for claims 35-40 and 60-66 in the instant Office action. Since the new § 101 rejection was necessitated by Applicant’s amendment of the claims, the instant rejection of claims 35-40 and 60-66 is FINAL rejection of the claims.
Examiner’s Remarks
Patent Eligibility under § 101: Applicant is arguing in pages 8 and 10 of Applicnat’s Remarks:
After issuance of the Office Action, the Office issued a memorandum ("Updated Guidance") titled "Advance notice of change to the MPEP in light of Ex Parte Desjardins," and dated December 5, 2025. The Updated Guidance that cautions "'Examiners [] should not evaluate claims at such a high level of generality' that potentially meaningful technical limitations are dismissed without adequate explanation." Updated Guidance, 4 (quoting Ex Parte Desjardins, Appeal No. 2024-000567 (PTAB September 26, 2025)). The Updated Guidance further cautions that "[w]hen evaluating a claim as a whole, examiners should not dismiss additional elements as mere 'generic computer components' without considering whether such elements confer a technological improvement to a technical problem, especially as to improvements to computer components or the computer system." Id.
. . .
For example, one skilled in the art would understand the claimed one-time payment plan authorization as providing an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or a technical field such as financial transaction networks. As set forth in amended independent claim 35, the claimed one-time payment plan authorization is recited as "authoriz[ing] initiation of all electronic debits or charges defined by the offer of credit without requiring further authorizations for each subsequent electronic debit or charge." By authorizing all electronic debits or charges without requiring further authorizations, the claimed one-time payment plan authorization represents an improvement in the functioning of financial transaction networks. By eliminating or reducing network communications related to obtaining further authorizations for subsequent electronic debits or charges, the claimed one-time payment plan authorization reduces bandwidth consumed in financial transaction networks by such network communications.
Another example, additional elements that implement a recited judicial exception with, or use a recited judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine that is integral to a claim integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.04(d)(I). Here, as set forth in amended claim 35, the claimed one-time payment plan authorization is so inextricably linked with electronic funds transfer systems that it is unclear how it could be implemented in any other context.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner has analyzed the claims according to the guidance by the Patent’s Office. Instant claims 35-40 and 60-66 are no patent eligible under § 101 because there is nothing recited in the claims that provides a technological solution to a problem of technology. Claims are recited in high level of generality lacking details and specifics to technological solution to a problem. Instead, Applicant is providing a business solution to a business problem of providing credit to a buyer based on seller’s risk tolerance instead of buyer’s credit worthiness. As such, instant claims 35-40 and 60-66 are not patent eligible under § 101.
Prior Art under § 102 and § 103: The closest prior art reference of record – Allen-Rouman (US 7,184,980 B2) discloses online incremental payment method. Allen-Rouman, however, does not disclose the following step found in independent claim 35 – alone or in combination with other prior art references – as an ordered combinations of steps with other claim 35 steps:
calculating, by the device, an offer of credit based upon a plurality of seller's established goods and services profit and risk management factors in order to establish a plurality of credit extension decision criteria, said offer of credit comprising a repayment amount, said repayment amount comprising at least one down payment amount and a remaining balance, said at least one down payment amount representing a fraction of the repayment amount to be collected prior to an applicant's receipt or seller's delivery to a buyer of the merchandise, wherein said plurality of profit- and risk-based credit extension decision criteria are defined, in response to the system's demands, and digitally stored on said computer readable media, whereas the plurality of credit extension decision criteria is used dynamically to make an actual credit extension decision for extending an offer of credit and without further input being required or obtained from the seller in response to the request;
Claim Objections
Claim 35 is objected to because of the informalities in the following recitations (see the bolded portions of the claim):
calculating, by the device, an offer of credit based upon a plurality of seller's established goods and services profit and risk management factors in order to establish a plurality of credit extension decision criteria, said offer of credit comprising a repayment amount, said repayment amount comprising at least one down payment amount and a remaining balance, said at least one down payment amount representing a fraction of the repayment amount to be collected prior to an applicant's receipt or seller's delivery to a buyer of the merchandise, wherein said plurality of profit- and risk-based credit extension decision criteria are defined, in response to the system's demands, and digitally stored on said computer readable media, whereas the plurality of credit extension decision criteria is used dynamically to make an actual credit extension decision for extending an offer of credit and without further input being required or obtained from the seller in response to the request;
. . .
reacting, by the device, to the repayment behavior of the applicant and establishing, by the device, a merchandise release date based on successful collection of said at least one down payment amount in accordance with terms and conditions associated with the offer of credit, and storing the established merchandise release date on said computer readable media in association with the one-time payment plan authorization;
. . .
releasing, by the device, the merchandise upon successful receipt of the at least one down payment amount, thereby causing physical merchandise to leave possession of a user or agent thereof and be released to the applicant, and then storing, by the device in association with the one-time payment plan authorization, data on said computer readable medium affirmatively indicative of the release of some or all of the merchandise;
There are should be indefinite article in front of “seller’s delivery” and “seller,” and no article in front of “repayment behavior,” because each of these appear in the claim for the first time; there should be definite article in front of “offer of credit” because it has appeared in the claim before; “said plurality of profit- and risk-based credit extension decision criteria are defined, in response to the system's demands,” could be rewritten as “said plurality of credit extension decision criteria based upon said plurality of seller’s established goods and services profit and risk management factors are defined in response to demands by the system” in order to avoid antecedent basis issues and to promote clarity; the word “whereas” could be replace by “and wherein”; and the word “and “ and “being” are not necessary in “and without further input being required or obtained from the seller in response to the request.” Applicant could amend independent claim 1 to recite:
calculating, by the device, an offer of credit based upon a plurality of seller's established goods and services profit and risk management factors in order to establish a plurality of credit extension decision criteria, said offer of credit comprising a repayment amount, said repayment amount comprising at least one down payment amount and a remaining balance, said at least one down payment amount representing a fraction of the repayment amount to be collected prior to an applicant's receipt or a seller's delivery to a buyer of the merchandise, wherein said plurality of credit extension decision criteria based upon said plurality of seller’s established goods and services profit and risk management factors are defined in response to demands by the system and digitally stored on said computer readable media, and wherein the plurality of credit extension decision criteria is used dynamically to make an actual credit extension decision for extending [[an]] the offer of credit [[and]] without further input [[being]] required or obtained from [[the]] a seller in response to the request;
. . .
reacting, by the device, to [[the]] repayment behavior of the applicant and establishing, by the device, a merchandise release date based on successful collection of said at least one down payment amount in accordance with terms and conditions associated with the offer of credit, and storing the established merchandise release date on said computer readable media in association with the one-time payment plan authorization;
. . .
releasing, by the device, the merchandise upon successful receipt of the at least one down payment amount, thereby causing physical merchandise to leave possession of a user or an agent thereof and be released to the applicant, and then storing, by the device in association with the one-time payment plan authorization, data on said computer readable medium affirmatively indicative of the release of some or all of the merchandise;
Claim 66 is objected to because of the informality in the following recitation:
. . . automatically re-presenting, by the device a second electronic debit or charge request to the clearinghouse server to cause an electronic funds transfer between a receiving financial institution server and the originating financial institution server via the interbank electronic payment and clearance system, the first and second electronic debit or charge requests each including the one-time payment plan authorization.
It appears that there should be a comma “,” after “by the device.” Applicant could amend claim 66 to recite:
. . . automatically re-presenting, by the device, a second electronic debit or charge request to the clearinghouse server to cause an electronic funds transfer between a receiving financial institution server and the originating financial institution server via the interbank electronic payment and clearance system, the first and second electronic debit or charge requests each including the one-time payment plan authorization.
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 35-40 and 60-66 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because they are directed to non-statutory subject matter. The rationale for this finding is explained below.
The Supreme Court in Mayo laid out a framework for determining whether an applicant is seeking to patent a judicial exception itself or a patent-eligible application of the judicial exception. See Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2355,110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. 66, 101 USPQ2d 1961). This framework, which is referred to as the Mayo test or the Alice/Mayo test (“the test”), is described in detail in Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (”MPEP”) (see MPEP § 2106(III) for further guidance). The step 1 of the test: It need to be determined whether the claims are directed to a patent eligible (i.e., statutory) subject matter under 35 USC § 101. Step 2A of the test: If the claims are found to be directed to a statutory subject matter, the next step is to determine whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea (prong 1). If the claims are found to be directed to an abstract idea, it needs to be determined whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (prong 2). Step 2B of the test: If the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the next and final step is to determine whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 1 of the Test:
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 USC § 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Here, the claimed invention of claims 35-40 and 60-66 is a series of steps, which is method (i.e., a process) and, thus, one of the statutory categories of invention.
Conclusion of Step 1 Analysis: Therefore, claims 35-40 and 60-66 are statutory under 35 USC § 101 in view of step 1 of the test.
Step 2A of the Test:
Prong 1: Claims 35-40 and 60-66, however, recite an abstract idea of extending a reduced-risk offer of credit to an applicant. The creation of extending a reduced-risk offer of credit to an applicant, as recited in the independent claim 35, belongs to certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., fundamental economic principles or practices including mitigating risk) that are found by the courts to be abstract ideas. The limitations in independent claim 35, which set forth or describe the recited abstract idea of extending an offer of credit to an applicant, are found in the following steps:
“calculating, by the device, an offer of credit based upon a plurality of seller's established goods and services profit and risk management factors in order to establish a plurality of credit extension decision criteria, said offer of credit comprising a repayment amount, said repayment amount comprising at least one down payment amount and a remaining balance, said at least one down payment amount representing a fraction of the repayment amount to be collected prior to an applicant's receipt or seller's delivery to a buyer of the merchandise, wherein said plurality of profit- and risk-based credit extension decision criteria are defined, in response to the system's demands, and digitally stored on said computer readable media, whereas the plurality of credit extension decision criteria is used dynamically to make an actual credit extension decision for extending an offer of credit and without further input being required or obtained from the seller in response to the request” (claim 35);
“reacting to the repayment behavior of the applicant and establishing a merchandise release date based on successful collection of said at least one down payment amount in accordance with terms and conditions associated with the offer of credit” (claim 35);
“confirming collection of a pre-authorized repayment amount that includes at least one down payment, or other amount collected through an electronic debit or other digital or electronic payment following the acceptance of the offer of credit from the applicant” (claim 35);
“releasing the merchandise upon successful receipt of the at least one down payment amount, thereby causing physical merchandise to leave possession of a user or agent thereof and be released to the applicant” (claim 35); and
“collecting, using the one-time payment plan authorization, a remaining repayment amount following the release of said one or more of goods and services included under a sale agreement” (claim 35).
These steps describe the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., fundamental economic principles or practices including mitigating risk) because these claim limitations are describing offering an alternative financing to an applicant in order for the applicant to purchase goods of services by extending a reduced-risk offer of credit to an applicant.
Prong 2: In addition to abstract steps recited above in Prong 1, independent claim 35 recites additional element:
“a device of a credit system” (claim 35).
These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (for example, as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Also, the following limitations found in independent claim 35 recite insignificant extra solution activity (for example, data gathering and storing data):
“receiving a request from an applicant to obtain alternative financing in order to purchase merchandise and approving said alternative financing request irrespective of applicant's credit score worthiness, said request being digitally converted to digital data and stored on computer readable media of the device” (claim 35);
“receiving an acceptance of the offer of credit from the applicant responsive to the device extending the offer of credit to the applicant, the acceptance comprising a one-time payment plan authorization that authorizes initiation of all electronic debits or charges defined by the offer of credit without requiring further authorizations for each subsequent electronic debit or charge” (claim 35);
“storing the established merchandise release date on said computer readable media in association with the one-time payment plan authorization” (claim 35);
“storing, in association with the one-time payment plan authorization, data on said computer readable media affirmatively indicative of collection of said at least one down payment and an entire repayment amount” (claim 35);
“storing, in association with the one-time payment plan authorization, data on said computer readable medium affirmatively indicative of the release of some or all of the merchandise” (claim 35); and
“storing, in association with the one-time payment plan authorization, data on said computer readable medium affirmatively indicative of both a progress of repayment and completion of repayment” (claim 35).
These additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The additional element/limitations of independent claim 35 here do not render improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)), nor do they integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under MPEP § 2106.05(b) (particular machine); MPEP § 2106.05(c) (particular transformations); or MPEP § 2106.05(e) (other meaningful limitations). Further, the combination of these additional elements/limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic device. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements/ limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Conclusion of Step 2A Analysis: Therefore, independent claim 35 is non-statutory under 35 USC § 101 in view of step 2A of the test.
Step 2B of the Test: The additional element of independent claim 35 (see above under Step 2A – Prong 2) are well-understood, routine, and conventional elements that amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. The Applicant’s Specification (as published) describes these additional elements in following terms:
[0060] Turning now to Figure 2, illustrated therein is one embodiment of a system 200 for an 20 extension of credit to an applicant desirous of alternative payment terms. The system includes a
[0061] client-side terminal 201 configured to communicate with an extension of credit server 202. The client-side terminal 201 may include kiosks, registers, point-of-sale devices, or other devices 204 16 for facilitating the application process for possible extension of credit to interested applicants.
[0062] The application adjudication process, risk reduction factors and interfaces to data necessary to compute the pre-calibrated level of reduced risk of maximum potential lost profits associated with the offered terms for extension of credit, debit financing or loan, occurs using the system database(s) accessed through server(s) 202. Once receiving the required applicant and merchandise/services information from the client-side terminal 201, server(s) 202 completes the method for determining whether or not an extension of credit will occur, as more fully described in FIG. 1. The extension of credit server delivers browser readable content to the client terminal 201 through an online-web interface 206. The device for facilitating the execution of related agreements to memorialize an accepted offer of extension of credit is connected to a store printer 205.
This is a description of general-purpose computer. Further, the additional limitations of “receiving” and “storing” information amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. For the same reason these additional limitations are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. The additional limitations of “receiving” and “storing” information were considered insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A – Prong 2. Re-evaluating here in Step 2B, they are also determined to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. Similarly to OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network), and buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network), the additional limitations of independent claim 35 “receive” information over a network in a merely generic manner. Further, similarly to Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015) and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93, the additional limitations of independent claim 35 “store” information. The courts have recognized “receiving” and “storing” information functions as well-understood, routine and conventional when claimed in a merely generic manner. Therefore, the additional limitations of independent claim 35 are well-understood, routine, and conventional. Further, taken as combination, the additional element/limitations add nothing more than what is present when the additional element/limitations are considered individually. There is no indication that the combination provides any effect regarding the functioning of the computer or any improvement to another technology.
Conclusion of Step 2B Analysis: Therefore, independent claim 35 is non-statutory under 35 USC § 101 in view of step 2B of the test.
Dependent Claims: Dependent claims 36-40 and 60-66 depend on independent claim 35. The elements in dependent claims 36-40 and 60-66, which set forth or describe the abstract idea, are:
“collecting the remaining repayment amount comprises computing, entering and storing withdrawal entries through an automated clearinghouse or credit processing network from deposited funds or available credit on hand for an account, and then storing data, by the device in association with the one-time payment plan authorization, on said computer readable medium affirmatively indicative of the same” (claim 36: further narrowing the recited abstract idea, except “storing” step is insignificant extra solution activity);
“collecting funds held in a deposit account by a receiving depository financial institution via an interbank electronic payment and clearance system, and then storing data, by the device in association with the one-time payment plan authorization, on said computer readable medium affirmatively indicative of the same” (claim 37: further narrowing the recited abstract idea, except “storing” step is insignificant extra solution activity);
“collecting the remaining repayment amount comprises settling an authorized charge to a credit card account through a credit card processing network, and initiating said electronic funds transfer as a debit against the credit card account, and then storing data, by the device in association with the one-time payment plan authorization, on said computer readable medium affirmatively indicative of the same” (claim 38: further narrowing the recited abstract idea, except “storing” step is insignificant extra solution activity);
“collecting the remaining repayment amount comprises settling an authorized charge charged to a debit card account through a debit card processing network, and a debit against the debit card account, and then storing data, by the device in association with the one-time payment plan authorization, on said computer readable medium affirmatively indicative of the same” (claim 39: further narrowing the recited abstract idea, except “storing” step is insignificant extra solution activity);
“prescribing a targeted maximum number of dollars at risk as a risk management factor, and then storing data, by the device in association with the one-time payment plan authorization, on said computer readable medium affirmatively indicative of the same” (claim 40: further narrowing the recited abstract idea, except “storing” step is insignificant extra solution activity);
“collecting the remaining repayment amount comprises presenting, by the device, an electronic debit or charge request that includes the one-time payment plan authorization to a clearinghouse server of an interbank electronic payment and clearance system” (claim 60: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“collecting the remaining repayment amount comprises, causing, by the device, a clearinghouse server to initiate a funds transfer between first and second financial institution servers using the one-time payment plan authorization” (claim 61: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“collecting the remaining repayment amount comprises, generating, by the device, an electronic debit or charge request with a file format defined for an interbank electronic payment and clearance system, the electronic debit or charge request including the one-time payment plan authorization” (claim 62: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“receiving, by the device, a reply with a clearinghouse return code from a clearinghouse server responsive to a first electronic debit or charge request presented by the device; and
automatically re-presenting, by the device, a second electronic debit or charge request to the clearinghouse server responsive to the reply, the first and second electronic debit or charge requests each including the one-time payment plan authorization” (claim 63: further narrowing the recited abstract idea, except “receiving” step is insignificant extra solution activity);
“the clearinghouse return code maps the first electronic debit or charge request to the second electronic debit or charge request in a work queue that systematically tracks content of return records associated with an interbank electronic payment and clearance system” (claim 64: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“the clearinghouse return code does not identify the first electronic debit or charge request as an unauthorized electronic debit or charge request” (claim 65: further narrowing the recited abstract idea); and
“receiving, by the device, an automated returns file from an originating financial institution server, the automated returns file comprising a clearinghouse return code that is associated with a first electronic debit or charge request presented by the device to a clearinghouse server of an interbank electronic payment and clearance system; and automatically re-presenting, by the device a second electronic debit or charge request to the clearinghouse server to cause an electronic funds transfer between a receiving financial institution server and the originating financial institution server via the interbank electronic payment and clearance system, the first and second electronic debit or charge requests each including the one-time payment plan authorization” (claim 66: further narrowing the recited abstract idea, except “receiving” step is insignificant extra solution activity).
Conclusion of Dependent Claims Analysis: Dependent claims 36-40 and 60-66 do not correct the deficiencies of independent claim 35, and they stand rejected on same basis.
Conclusion of the 35 USC § 101 Analysis: Therefore, claims 35-40 and 60-66 are rejected as directed to an abstract idea without “significantly more” under 35 USC § 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jammal (WO 9948036 A1) discloses: “Weightage given for each credit factor is determined using both inputs, based on which default probability of borrower is calculated to determine level of fitness. The weightage is set to new calculated value when level of fitness is found to be below preset value, based on which credit is approved.”
Stone (WO 2011043752 A1) discloses: “A system and method for extending a firm offer of credit (101) contingent upon receiving a one-time authorization to execute recurring automatic withdrawals from a deposit account (102) is provided. In providing the one-time authorization to execute recurring automatic withdrawals (102), a prospective borrower may elect from a plurality of automatic withdrawal repayment options (217). One such option is electronic fund transfer (114), such as the initiation of a withdrawal entry into the Automated Clearing House network (215). A second option is by the remote creation of a paper negotiable instrument (107), which is then converted into an electronic substitute check (607) capable of electronic routing (215). Upon receiving the one-time authorization, the lender (504) may make recurring automatic withdrawals from the borrower's deposit account (102).”
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIRPI H. KANERVO whose telephone number is 571-272-9818. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 10 am - 6 pm, EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Abhishek Vyas can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/VIRPI H KANERVO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691