DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in reply to the amendment filed on 05/26/2026.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
The previous double patenting rejections are withdrawn due the terminal disclaimer filed 05/26/2026.
The previous 112(b) rejections are withdrawn due amendments to the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 13-14, filed 05/26/2026, with respect to claims 1-20 rejected under 35 USC 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 102 and 103 rejections of claims 1-20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 05/26/2026 with respect claims 1-20 rejected under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues #1:
Step 2A, Prong Two
Even assuming, arguendo, that claim 1 recites an abstract idea, the amended claim as a whole integrates any such idea into a practical application. Claim 1, as amended, requires a particular distributed computing interaction between a client device and a dealer portal. The claimed computing system first receives, via the client device, dealer lead input including a selected vehicle and an identifier of a dealer. The computing system then causes selectable rate options to be displayed on a client UI and receives a client-side selection of a first preferred rate.
Thereafter, the computing system receives, via a dealer UI associated with a dealer portal, a request to generate a resource request in connection with the selected vehicle. The computing system does not simply make the selected preferred rate generally available. Rather, the computing system verifies that the dealer-side resource request is based on the dealer lead input received via the client device and, responsive to that verification, controls display of resource request parameter data on the dealer UI by selectively enabling a dealer-side UI element corresponding to the first preferred rate.
These limitations impose a meaningful technological constraint on the alleged commercial concept. The claimed system uses server-side verification to control the functional state of a dealer portal interface. The preferred rate UI element is enabled in the dealer portal only when the dealer- side resource request is verified as being based on the client-originated dealer lead. Thus, the claim is directed to a specific mechanism for synchronizing client-side rate selection with dealer-side resource request generation and for controlling whether a dealer portal enables the selected preferred rate option.
This is a practical application of any alleged abstract idea. The claim improves the operation and integrity of a distributed resource request platform by preventing a dealer-side interface from making a preferred rate selectable unless the dealer-side resource request is verified against the corresponding client-side dealer lead. The claimed server-side verification and selective UI enablement are not insignificant extra-solution activity. They are the operative mechanism by which the system controls dealer-side access to the preferred rate.
The specification supports this technical framing. The application describes controlling display of resource request parameter data on a second/dealer interface, receiving a dealer-side request to generate a resource request, and enabling selection of a dealer-side interface element corresponding to the preferred rate. The specification further describes that the preferred rate is only accessible by the dealer identified in the dealer lead, and that the server may verify that a dealer-side resource request is associated with the dealer lead input received via the client device.
Accordingly, the claim does not merely recite generic components for "coordinating sales activities between a client and a dealer to allow the client to select a preferred rate of borrowing". The claim uses the computing system to enforce a server-side association between a client- originated dealer lead and a dealer-side resource request, and to control the dealer interface based Accordingly, the claim does not merely recite generic components for "coordinating sales activities between a client and a dealer to allow the client to select a preferred rate of borrowing". The claim uses the computing system to enforce a server-side association between a client- originated dealer lead and a dealer-side resource request, and to control the dealer interface.
Examiners response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, using the server to restrict access based on being verified based on the client-originated dealer lead and controlling the content/elements available to be displayed does not render the claims eligible as this is akin Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715-16, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1755 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (restricting public access to media was found to be insignificant extra-solution activity); Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1242, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1855 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (in patents regarding electronic menus, features related to types of ordering were found to be insignificant extra-solution activity) similar to the instant the application in which the server is restricting access to the dealer of the dealer lead information based on the selection of the dealer and vehicle by the client. The UI’s are merely part of the technical environment in which the idea is being limited to, and as per MPEP 2106.05(f) Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone);. See also Requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370-71, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1642 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and Generating restaurant menus with functionally claimed features, Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1245, 120 USPQ2d at 1857;.
Applicant argues #2:
Step 2B
Even if the Office were to maintain that claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea, amended claim 1 recites significantly more than that abstract idea.
The ordered combination of limitations provides an inventive concept. The amended claim recites a specific sequence of operations in which the system: receives a client-originated dealer lead identifying a selected vehicle and dealer; receives a client-side selection of a preferred rate associated with that dealer lead; receives, through a dealer portal, a dealer-side request to generate a resource request for the selected vehicle; verifies that the dealer-side resource request is based on the client-originated dealer lead; and responsive to that verification, selectively enables a preferred rate UI element on the dealer UI.
This ordered combination provides a particular server-side control mechanism for determining whether a dealer portal should enable a preferred rate option. The claimed computing system does not merely display the selected rate to the dealer; it conditionally controls the availability of the dealer-side interface element based on verification of the relationship between the dealer-side resource request and the client-originated dealer lead.
The additional elements, considered as an ordered combination, are not a generic instruction to "apply" a financial/commercial concept on a computer. Rather, they recite a specific server-controlled interface enablement arrangement that ties a client-side preferred rate selection to a dealer-side resource request workflow.
Accordingly, even if the claim were considered to recite an abstract idea, the claimed server-side verification and selective enablement of the dealer UI amount to significantly more than the alleged abstract idea. Amended claim 1 is therefore patent eligible under Step 2B.
Examiners response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, for the same reasons as discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, using the server to restrict access based on being verified based on the client-originated dealer lead and controlling the content/elements available to be displayed does not render the claims eligible as this is akin Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715-16, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1755 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (restricting public access to media was found to be insignificant extra-solution activity); Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1242, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1855 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (in patents regarding electronic menus, features related to types of ordering were found to be insignificant extra-solution activity) similar to the instant the application in which the server is restricting access to the dealer lead information based on the selection of the dealer and vehicle by the client and being verified that it based on the client’s selection. The UI’s and controlling of the information displayed via the UI are merely part of the technical environment in which the idea is being limited to, and as per MPEP 2106.05(f) Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone);. See also Requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370-71, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1642 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and Generating restaurant menus with functionally claimed features, Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1245, 120 USPQ2d at 1857;.
For the reasons above, the 101 rejection of claims 1-20 is hereby maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7-10 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the selected vehicle" in 13th line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the selected vehicle" in 10th line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 8-10 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, by virtue of being dependent on claims 7 and 17 respectively.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, and fails step 2 of the analysis because the focus of the claims is not on the devices themselves or a practical application but rather directed towards an abstract idea, the analysis is provided below.
Step 1 (Statutory Categories) - The claims pass step 1 of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106(III)) as the claims are directed towards a pair of related systems, and methods.
Step 2A – Prong One (Do the claims recite an abstract idea?)
Claims 1, and 11 recite an idea, in part, by:
receiving, via a client, input of a dealer lead including a selection of a vehicle and an identifier of a dealer for the selected vehicle;
in response to receiving the dealer lead input: providing, a client, selectable options for a rate of resource borrowing in connection with the dealer lead;
receiving, via the client, selection of one of the options corresponding to a first preferred rate of resource borrowing;
receive, via a dealer, a request to generate a resource request in connection with the selected vehicle; and
responsive to verifying that the resource request is based on the dealer lead input received via the client, selectively enabling, via the dealer, the first preferred rate of resource borrowing.
While varying in scope, claims 7, and 17, recite a related idea, in part, by:
generating a code associated with one or more preferred rates of resource borrowing;
providing, a client, the generated code and selectable options for a rate of resource borrowing;
receiving, via the client, client selection of one of the options corresponding to a first preferred rate of resource borrowing;
receive, via a dealer, a request to generate a resource request in connection with the selected vehicle; and
in response to receiving input of the generated code via the dealer and verifying that the resource request is based on the dealer lead input received via the client, selectively enabling, via the dealer, the first preferred rate of resource borrowing.
The steps recited above under Step 2A Prong One of the analysis under the broadest reasonable interpretation covers commercial or legal interactions (including agreements marketing or sales activities or behaviors) but for the recitation of generic computer components for coordinating sales activities between a client and dealer to allow the client to select a preferred rate of borrowing and a vehicle for purchasing a vehicle. That is other than reciting a processor, memory, client device, client user interface, user interface elements, and dealer user interface associated with a dealer portal nothing in the claim elements are directed towards anything other than commercial or legal interactions as described above. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial or legal interactions, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” groupings of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two (Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?) - This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the additional elements of a processor, memory, client device, client user interface, user interface elements, and dealer user interface associated with a dealer portal. The aforementioned additional elements are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and limit the judicial exception to the particular environment of computers. The claim limitations reciting displaying/enabling/providing the user interfaces and respective elements for providing/selecting the preferred rate of resource borrow and resource request parameter data are claimed at a high level of generality, amounting to no more than sending and receiving data between computers over a network and tailoring information to the user for performing the abstract idea in the computer environment. Courts have recognized such operations to be insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(I), 2106.05(d)(ii) and MPEP 2106.05(g) as well as cases cited therein, including 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), and are merely invoking the computers as tools for performing the abstract process similar to requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, see also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370-71, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1642 (Fed. Cir. 2015);, Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715-16, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1755 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (restricting public access to media was found to be insignificant extra-solution activity); Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1242, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1855 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (in patents regarding electronic menus, features related to types of ordering were found to be insignificant extra-solution activity). Further, mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components and limiting the judicial exception to a particular environment are not indicative of a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f) and MPEP 2106.05(h)). The specification does not provide any indication that the above forementioned additional elements are other than generic computer components, see [0061-0065] describing highly generic computer components used to implement the abstract idea. 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 towards an abstract idea.
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?) - The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, using the additional elements of a processor, memory, client device, client user interface, user interface elements, and dealer user interface associated with a dealer portal to perform the steps recited in Step 2A Prong One of the analysis amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and limits the judicial exception to the particular computer environment. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components and limiting the judicial exception to a particular environment does not provide an inventive concept. The additional elements have been considered separately, and as an ordered combination, and do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the judicial exception. As explained above, controlling the display of and enabling the selection of options on user interfaces and resource request parameter data amount to sending and receiving data between computers over a network, which courts have recognized to be insignificant extra-solution activity and that is well-understood, routine and conventional (see MPEP § 2106.05(g), § 2106.05(d)(II)(i), and invoking the computers as tools for performing the abstract idea and cases cited therein. For example, MPEP 2106.05(d)(ii) provides that receiving and transmitting data over a network (see 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), and Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log); are well-understood routine and conventional operations, similar to the instant application’s claim limitations which recite and sending and receiving data over a network to allow customers to shop for vehicles and loans for purchasing a vehicle of interest with a dealership and communicate this information to the dealership. Further, the Examiner is interpreting the interface elements and selectable options for selection, to be akin to a displaying steps, and as discussed above, the displaying step fails to transform the claims into patent eligible material, as this is part of the field of use and technical environment in which the abstract idea is being implement and does not result in an improvement to additional elements (see MPEP 2106.05(h) Electric Power Group court decision). The claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims have been given the full analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination as a whole. For instance, the dependent claim 2 recites detect a trigger action… a trigger action is defined in [0107] of the specification as “Examples of trigger actions which may be detected by the server include, but are not limited to: receiving via the client device a pre-qualification request for qualifying to borrow a first quantity of resources from a resource lender entity…”, this is merely receiving and analyzing information, and aside from using the client device to send the request, the trigger action is akin to providing the information needed for the sales activity for acquiring a loan to purchase a product. Claims 3, 5-6, and 8-10 (and their counterparts in the method claims) further describe commercial and legal interactions but for the recitation of generic components. Claims 4 and 14 further describe the technical environment with use of digital channels to identify the origin of the dealer lead. The dependent claims when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
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 GREGORY S CUNNINGHAM II whose telephone number is (313)446-6564. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am-4pm.
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.
GREGORY S. CUNNINGHAM II
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3694
/GREGORY S CUNNINGHAM II/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694
Prosecution Insights