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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on 2026 April 10 has been entered. The following is in reply to the Amendments and Arguments.
Claims amended: 1, 9, 17
Claims cancelled: none
Claims added: none
Claims currently pending: 1-24
Response to Arguments
Applicant, in the “REMARKS” section, presents opening remarks regarding the disposition of the claims and the amendments to the claims. As no specific argument is raised in this/these section(s) with respect to the instant application, no rebuttal is required.
Applicant, in the “Claim Reiections under 35 U.S.C. § 101” section, requests withdrawal of the grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 due to the amendments to the claims. Examiner finds that the amendments to the claims, while providing a more tangible embodiment, do not render the claims into eligible subject matter. Therefore, the grounds of rejection under said statute is herein maintained, albeit updated to reflect Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Applicant, in the “Claim Reiections under 35 U.S.C. §103” section, requests withdrawal of the grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 due to the amendments to the claims. Examiner finds that the amendments to the claims do not overcome the previously applied prior art. Therefore, the grounds of rejection under said statute is herein maintained, albeit updated to reflect Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
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 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-8 are directed towards a method. Claims 9-16 are directed towards a system. Claims 17-24 are directed towards a manufacture (computer-readable medium). Thus, these claims, on their face, are directed to one of the statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Step 2A - Prong One: As per MPEP 2106.04, Prong One asks does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon. In Prong One examiners evaluate whether the claim(s) recites a judicial exception; that is, whether the claim(s) set forth or describe a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea.
Claim 1 is presented here as a representative claim for specific analysis (The underlined claim terms here are interpreted as additional elements beyond the abstract idea.):
A computer-implemented method comprising:
identifying, by an incentive-management application of a resource provider accessing account data stored in an accounts database, an installment option associated with an account, wherein the installment option identifies a first recurring transfer of resources across a time period;
determining, a condition determination module of the incentive-management application accessing a conditions database, one or more conditions for transferring the resources;
determining, by an installment-option determination module of the incentive-management application and based on the one or more conditions, an alternative installment option associated with the account, wherein the alternative installment option identifies a second recurring transfer of resources across the time period,
wherein the alternative installment option is associated with an incentive associated with the account, and wherein the incentive is applied when the one or more conditions are satisfied;
transmitting, by the incentive-management application, the installment option and the alternative installment option,
wherein when the installment option and the alternative installment option are received,
a web service causes the installment option and the alternative installment option to be displayed on one or more web pages;
receiving, by the incentive-management application, a user selection of the alternative installment option;
enrolling, by the incentive-management application, the account in the alternative installment option by updating account data stored in the accounts database;
detecting, by a condition-monitoring subsystem of the incentive-management application and after enrolling the account in the alternative installment option, in real-time a set of actions performed for the account, wherein the set of actions are associated with the one or more conditions, and wherein the set of actions are detected in real-time as a plurality of actions continue to be performed for the account;
determining, by the condition-monitoring subsystem, in real-time that the one or more conditions have been satisfied based on the set of actions, wherein the one or more conditions are determined to have been satisfied in real-time as the plurality of actions continue to be performed for the account;
and processing, by a transaction processor of the incentive-management application, the incentive associated with the alternative installment option by updating the account data stored in the accounts database to apply the incentive to the account.
The claims here are based on the recitation of an abstract idea (i.e. recitation other than the additional elements delineated here with underlining and further addressed per Step 2A - Prong Two and Step 2B). The claims recite the abstract idea of awarding incentives to a user upon the user completing required actions related to an installment payment option which falls within certain methods of organizing human activity.
The phrase "certain methods of organizing human activity" applies to fundamental economic principles or practices including hedging insurance, mitigating risk; commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors business relations; managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities teaching, and following rules or instructions. Refer to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II. A-C.
The Remaining Claims: The additional independent claims fail to recite any additional elements beyond those identified above except “one or more processors”, “memory storing thereon instructions”, “non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium”. The dependent claims recite fail to recite any additional elements beyond those already identified except “machine-learning model” (claims 6-8, 14-16, 22-24).
The dependent claims further reiterate the same abstract idea with further embellishments: details of the incentive requirements (claims 2-8, 10-16, 18-24). Therefore, the identified claims fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
Step 2A - Prong Two: As per MPEP 2106.04.II.A.2, Prong Two determines if the claim(s) recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
As for the additional elements of: “incentive-management application”, “accounts database”, “condition determination module”, “conditions database”, “installment-option determination module”, “condition-monitoring subsystem”, “transaction processor”, “computer-implemented”, “one or more processors”, “memory storing thereon instructions”, “non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium”. To be patent-eligible, the elements additional to the identified abstract idea must amount to more than "an instruction to apply the abstract idea . . . using some unspecified, generic computer" to render the claim patent-eligible. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 226 (2014). It would have been readily apparent to one having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) at the time the invention was filed that the additional elements represent generic computing devices. Therefore, the claims amount to no more than a mere method, system, and/or computer program product to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer system. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
As for the additional element(s) of: “a machine learning model”. The use of machine learning or artificial intelligence, without providing details of how the models themselves are improved, represents mere instructions to apply an exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
transmitting the installment option and the alternative installment option, wherein when the installment option and the alternative installment option are received, a web service causes the installment option and the alternative installment option to be displayed on one or more web pages; receiving a user selection of the alternative installment option; The gathering and presentation of data represents insignificant extra-solution activity that comprises mere data gathering. The gathering of data represents insignificant extra-solution activity that comprises mere data gathering. The additional element(s) represent insignificant extra-solution activity incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim as noted in MPEP 2106.05(g).
The ordered combination of these additional elements amounts to generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The ordered combination offers nothing more than employing a generic configuration of computer devices and computer functions. The claims do not amount to a practical application, similar to how limiting the abstract idea in Flook to petrochemical and oil-refining industries was insufficient.
Step 2B: As per MPEP 2106.05, the additional elements are analyzed, both individually and in combination, to determine whether an "inventive concept" is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
As for the additional element(s):
transmitting the installment option and the alternative installment option, wherein when the installment option and the alternative installment option are received, represents receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information)
a web service causes the installment option and the alternative installment option to be displayed on one or more web pages; receiving a user selection of the alternative installment option; represents using a user interface such as a web browser’s back and forward button functionality, Internet Patent Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
Applying a "machine learning model" at a high level of generality represents performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Machine learning is well-understood, routine and conventional as exemplified in "Approaches to Machine Learning" by Langley et al. (Langley, P. and Carbonell, J.G. (1984), Approaches to machine learning. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci., 35: 306-316. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.4630350509 (Year: 1984))
References of Record but not Applied in the Current Grounds of Rejection
The prior art listed below is made of record as considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is not relied upon in the grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Those starred with '*' were added to this list in this Office action. Those without "*" were added in a previous Office action and are not repeated on a PTO-892 Notice of References Cited form, but are maintained herein for informational purposes only.
* Parietti (Pub. #: US 2024/0029097 A1) discloses a system for recommending payment options utilizing a classifier to evaluate the incentives for each of the payment options.
Bian et al., in “The rise of e-wallets and buy-now-pay-later: Payment competition, credit expansion, and consumer behavior”, discusses the rise of Buy Now Pay Later (BNPL) payment systems and the effect on consumer behavior.
Examiner's Note on the Format of the Prior Art Rejections
The prior art rejections below contain underlined markings of the limitations (e.g. sample limitation). The underlined portions of a claim are addressed at the end of the grounds of rejection for that claim. Examiner notes that the underlining of the claim language is not a statement that the primary reference does not teach that language, but simply that said claim language is addressed at the end of the grounds of rejection for that claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 9-13, 17-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Anderson et al. (Pub. #: US 2022/0398585 A1) in view of
Etheredge et al. (Pub. #: US 2010/0106576 A1).
Claim(s) 1, 9, 17:
These claims are analogous with different representative embodiments: claim 1 is a method embodiment, claim 9 is a system embodiment, and claim 17 is a computer-readable medium embodiment. Anderson teaches a computer system with computer-readable media in at least 0334-0339, databases for storing account and user information in at least 0119-0126. Examiner notes that the “modules” and “applications” are understood to represent software implementation of the logical steps:
identifying, by an incentive-management application of a resource provider accessing account data stored in an accounts database, an installment option associated with an account, wherein the installment option identifies a first recurring transfer of resources across a time period; determining one or more conditions for transferring the resources;
(Anderson discloses an existing credit account that allows for presenting alternate periodic payment plans for a purchase in at least 0025, Figure 11, 0313-0325.)
determining, by a condition determination module of the incentive-management application accessing a conditions database, an alternative installment option associated with the account, wherein the alternative installment option identifies a second recurring transfer of resources across the time period, wherein the alternative installment option is associated with an incentive associated with the account, and wherein the incentive is applied when the one or more conditions are satisfied;
(Anderson discloses proposing additional Buy Now Pay Later options wherein the options may include "an incentive" in at least 0133 and using a variety of possible options in at least 0127-0132.)
transmitting, by the incentive-management application, the installment option and the alternative installment option, wherein when the installment option and the alternative installment option are received, a web service causes the installment option and the alternative installment option to be displayed on one or more web pages;
(Anderson discloses a web-based interface for the Buy Now Pay Later application in at least 0043 and discloses presenting the offers to the user in at least 0132.)
receiving, by the incentive-management application, a user selection of the alternative installment option;
(Anderson discloses presenting multiple payment options for user selection in at least 0132-0143.)
enrolling, by the incentive-management application, the account in the alternative installment option by updating account data stored in the accounts database;
(Anderson discloses opening a new credit account for the user in at least 0130-0140.)
detecting, by a condition-monitoring subsystem of the incentive-management application and after enrolling the account in the alternative installment options, in real-time a set of actions performed for the account, wherein the set of actions are associated with the one or more conditions, and wherein the set of actions are detected in real-time as a plurality of actions continue to be performed for the account;
determining, by the condition-monitoring subsystem, in real-time that the one or more conditions have been satisfied based on the set of actions, wherein the one or more conditions are determined to have been satisfied in real-time as the plurality of actions continue to be performed for the account;
and processing, by a transaction processor of the incentive-management application, the incentive associated with the alternative installment option by updating the account data stored in the accounts database to apply the incentive to the account.
As for the underlined portions: Anderson discloses incentives for various buy now pay later options presented to a user as noted above. Anderson does not appear to make explicit the monitoring of user activities in real-time to process incentive payments. However, Etheredge teaches a technique of monitoring a transaction account according to "predetermined rules, billing history, transaction history, payment terms for the transaction account, eligibility rules, etc." in order to qualify the user for incentives in at least 0078-0091.
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 installment options system of Anderson with the technique of real-time monitoring to qualify a user for incentives as taught by Etheredge. Motivation to combine Anderson with Etheredge derives from the desire to encourage good behavior in users by offering incentives (Etheredge: 0007).
Claim(s) 2, 10, 18:
wherein the installment option indicates an interest rate associated with resources of the account, and wherein the incentive of the alternative installment option includes a reduction of the interest rate associated with the installment option.
(Anderson discloses presenting multiple payment options to users in at least 0132-0143. Specifically, a reduced interest rate may be presented a reduced interest rate associated with autopayment setup in at least 0123-0127.)
Claim(s) 3, 11, 19:
wherein the installment option indicates an amount of interest to be applied to the resources of the account, and wherein the incentive of the alternative installment option includes waiving an entirety the indicated amount of interest.
(Anderson discloses presenting multiple payment options to users in at least 0132-0143. Specifically, a reduced interest rate may be presented a reduced interest rate or a "not interest grace period" associated with autopayment setup in at least 0123-0127.)
Claim(s) 4, 12, 20:
wherein the one or more conditions include payment of an entirety of resources associated with the account before a particular date, and wherein the particular date is earlier than a maturation date associated with the time period.
(Anderson discloses presenting multiple payment options to users in at least 0132-0143. Specifically, Anderson discloses "no interest charged" if the BNPL is paid off "within a time period that is shorter than the default time period" in at least 0142.)
Claim(s) 5, 13, 21:
wherein the one or more conditions include activating an automatic withdrawal of the resources that are associated with the second recurring transfer.
(Anderson discloses presenting multiple payment options to users in at least 0132-0143. Specifically, a reduced interest rate may be presented a reduced interest rate associated with autopayment setup in at least 0123-0127.)
Claim(s) 6-8, 14-16, 22-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Anderson et al. (Pub. #: US 2022/0398585 A1) in view of
Etheredge et al. (Pub. #: US 2010/0106576 A1) in view of
Gabri et al. (Pub. #: US 2025/0053952 A1).
Claim(s) 6, 14, 22:
wherein the incentive is associated with a particular type, and wherein the particular type of the incentive is determined by applying a machine-learning model to profile data of a user associated with the account.
Anderson does not appear to specify the use of a "machine learning model" applied to profile data of a user associated with the account. However, Gabri teaches a technique of using incentive rules that apply to transactions above a threshold (i.e., a type of transaction) and that the rules are determined by machine learning algorithms in at least 0075-0079.
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 installment options system of Anderson, in view of Etheredge, with the technique of using a machine learning model applied on user data to optimize installment options presented to users as taught by Gabri. Motivation to combine Anderson with Gabri derives from the desire to present users with the installment options that provide the "greatest value or utility" (Gabri: 0029).
Claim(s) 7, 15, 23:
wherein the one or more conditions include one or more condition parameters, and wherein the one or more condition parameters are determined by applying a machine-learning model to profile data of a user associated with the account.
Anderson does not appear to specify the use of a "machine learning model" applied to profile data of a user associated with the account. However, Gabri teaches a technique of using incentive rules that apply to transactions above a threshold (i.e., a condition) and that the rules are determined by machine learning algorithms in at least 0075-0079.
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 installment options system of Anderson, in view of Etheredge, with the technique of using a machine learning model applied on user data to optimize installment options presented to users as taught by Gabri. Motivation to combine Anderson with Gabri derives from the desire to present users with the installment options that provide the "greatest value or utility" (Gabri: 0029).
Claim(s) 8, 16, 24:
wherein the incentive includes one or more incentive parameters, and wherein the one or more incentive parameters are determined by applying a machine-learning model to profile data of a user associated with the account.
Anderson does not appear to specify the use of a "machine learning model" applied to profile data of a user associated with the account. However, Gabri teaches a technique of using incentive rules that apply to transactions above a threshold (i.e., parameters) and that the rules are determined by machine learning algorithms in at least 0075-0079.
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 installment options system of Anderson, in view of Etheredge, with the technique of using a machine learning model applied on user data to optimize installment options presented to users as taught by Gabri. Motivation to combine Anderson with Gabri derives from the desire to present users with the installment options that provide the "greatest value or utility" (Gabri: 0029).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) 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 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 SCOTT SNIDER whose telephone number is (571)272-9604. The examiner can normally be reached M-W: 9:00-4:30 Mountain (11:00-6:30 Eastern).
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, Waseem Ashraf can be reached at (571)270-3948. 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.
/S.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3621
/WASEEM ASHRAF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3621
Prosecution Insights